Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill.

Bill committed.

Clyde Navigation Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Friday.

London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport) Bill (by Order),

London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

BAHAMA ISLANDS (LIGHTSHIP).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in January last an American ship, the "President Garfield," grounded on a coral reef in the Bahamas; and why the Government refused to allow the United States to place a lightship near these dangerous reefs when the United States Government asked permission to do so several years ago?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I am aware of the stranding of the "President Garfield." No record can be found of any request by the United States Government, for permission to place a lightship in the locality where the vessel stranded, although prior to 1906 the United States Government had passed on to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington petitions from shipmasters asking for a lightship. In 1916 a lighted buoy was definitely recommended by the United States Government, who suggested a suitable position for it. A buoy was subsequently approved by His Majesty's Government and placed in the position suggested, and the United States Government undertook to arrange for attendance on the buoy at British expense. This arrangement was made, and the United States Government purchased the buoy and placed it in position, and are providing for attendance on it at the expense of His Majesty's Government.

NAVIGATING OFFICERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the National Maritime Board has come to an agreement by which in future vessels of more than 2,750 tons gross trading beyond Western European limits will carry three certificated navigating officers as from 1st September next; whether this will affect all vessels on the British register; what means there will be of enforcing it; and whether it is intended to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts accordingly?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Board of Trade have been informed that an agreement has been reached by the National Maritime Board to the effect that foreign-going vessels of 2,750 tons gross and upwards, when trading outside Western European limits, shall carry three certificated navigating officers in addition to the master. The agreement will presumably apply to all vessels for which shipowners represented on the National Maritime Board are responsible. I have no reason to suppose that British shipowners who have deliberately entered into this agreement do not intend to observe it. It is not proposed to amend the Merchant Shipping Act.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How does the hon. Gentleman know that it will be observed by those who do not belong to or are not represented en the National Maritime Board?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think we ought to give the scheme a chance before criticising it.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that no case has ever been known where shipowners have not carried out loyally the decision of the National Maritime Board, on which shipowners, sailors, and firemen are represented?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think the National Maritime Board does its work exceedingly well.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In that case, why not introduce a short amending Bill, which would be sure passing through this House, to make this statutory?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Questions on business should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

CREW SPACES.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of vessels of 1,000 tons register and upwards launched from British shipbuilding yards during 1928 or the latest year for which statistics are available; the number of these vessels which are British owned and foreign owned; and the number of vessels in each of these classes which provide for deck hands and firemen two- or four-berth cabins, messrooms, separate hospital accommodation, baths or shower baths, drying rooms, oilskin lockers, and wash basins?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If the information for which the hon. Member asks were readily available, I should be pleased to supply it; but it would have to be compiled from the records of each ship built during the period, and I do not think the result would justify the time and labour that would be involved.

IRISH LIGHTS SERVICE.

Mr. KELLY: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the date has been agreed for the Irish Free State to take over the Irish Lights service?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: No, Sir. The future of the Irish Lights service is still
under the consideration of His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and in the Irish Free State, and I regret that I cannot state when a decision is likely to be reached.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Member taking any steps to look after the pensions of these men?

Mr. WILLIAMS: All matters are bound to be taken into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY, CORNWALL (COAST WATCHERS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that many of the fishermen of Padstow, Port Isaac, and other parts of North Cornwall feel that more coast watchers are needed, especially in bad weather, in order that timely notice may be given of fishing vessels in distress; that in the recent case of the fishing vessel "Our Girlie," when five fishermen nearly lost their lives and their boat was wrecked, the skipper burnt flares consisting of blankets and bedding soaked in petrol, a statutory distress signal, from 10.30 p.m. until the lifeboat arrived at 5.30 a.m.; and whether he will consider increasing the number of the coast watchers so that a continual look-out can be kept, especially in had weather?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: My attention had previously been drawn to the particular case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, and it was very carefully investigated. I was satisfied that there was no reason to think that the look-out arrangements were in fault The local officer is instructed to put on a bad weather watch when in his judgment the weather requires it, and it is, I fear, inevitable that in some cases his opinion may not coincide exactly with that of some local fishermen. In order, however, that exceptional precautions may be taken during the Padstow fishing season, which lasts for about six weeks in the autumn, it has been decided that during this season look-outs shall be posted by both the Padstow and Port Isaac coastguards, irrespective of weather conditions, during the time that any of the Padstow fishing vessels may be at sea.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS EXPLOSIONS (LONDON STREETS).

Mr. DAY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the gas explosions which have taken place in the streets of London during the last few months, any officers of his Department have had an opportunity of testing, during that period, any new inventions which it is claimed will prevent gas explosions; and whether the results have been satisfactory?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Attention has been called to one device of the kind in question. As the hon. Member is aware, a Commission of Inquiry is considering the question of how the risks to life and property caused by gas explosions can be minimised, and, until they have reported, it would be premature to consider the merits of particular devices.

Mr. DAY: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be desirable to test the device to which he refers with a view to preventing any future accidents of this kind?

Mr. WILLIAMS: As I have said in my reply, it would be rather a mistake to consider particular devices until the Commissioners have diagnosed the probable causes of the disasters.

Oral Answers to Questions — PATENTS.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many complete specifications filed in connection with applications for patents are awaiting first action by the examiner; and at what rate arrears are now accumulating?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The number of complete specifications filed in connection with applications for patents and awaiting first action by the examiner is about 8,400. The average rate of accumulation of arrears for the last 13 weeks was about 76 per week.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate any early reduction of this increase?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The situation has been giving me a good deal of anxiety for some months past, and special efforts have been made to add to the staff.
Seventeen new appointments have been made since October; four of the new officials have not yet started duty, but will do so shortly. Steps have been taken to make further appointments, and I hope that the arrears will shortly begin to be overcome.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the report, signed in October last, of a committee under the auspices of the British Science Guild, in which several changes in the procedure of the Patents Office were recommended; and whether he proposs to take any action in the matter?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend proposes, in due course, to set up a committee to review existing patent law and practice; and it will, of course, be open to such a committee to consider the recommendations made in the report.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the President of the Board of Trade proposes to set up this Committee?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I cannot say off-hand. As the hon. Member knows, my right hon. Friend is in bed at the moment, and I have not had an opportunity of asking him on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — OBBUASSI MINES COMPANY.

Mr. DENNISON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the last annual general meeting of the Obbuassi Mines Company took place; is he satisfied that the statutory conditions of this company are being complied with; and, if not, what action be proposes to take?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Documents filed by the company show that general meetings were held on the 21st March, 1928, and 5th April, 1928. The company has not yet filed its annual return for the year 1928, and the Registrar is in communication with the company on the matter.

Mr. DENNISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the company has filed its return for 1927?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I cannot say without notice, but I think not.

Mr. DENNISON: Or for 1926?

Oral Answers to Questions — OHINA (BRITISH TROOPS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War what expenditure has been made or incurred to date for accommodation, quarters, rent, etc., for the Shanghai Defence Force; and what financial or other assistance has been received to date from the inhabitants of the international settlement towards the expenses of the expedition?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Approximately £950,000 has been expended on accommodation, quarters and rent, etc., at Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tientsin and Wei-Hai-Wei. As regards the second part of the question, the Shanghai Municipal Council have exempted from municipal taxation all lands and buildings occupied by the Defence Force, and have allowed unoccupied land and buildings which they own to be utilised rent free. In addition, they pay the extra cost of small parties of troops specially detailed to assist in the maintenance of internal order when necessary within the international settlement.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that this is the only contribution made by the international settlement? Do they only pay for the troops who are actually on police duty?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could the right hon. Gentleman, at his convenience, let me have the separate figures for Shanghai? I am interested in asking about Shanghai, but not about Tientsin or Hong Kong.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will see whether I can separate the Shanghai figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MOBILISATION CIRCULARS (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether
he is aware that circular letters are being addressed by the district military headquarters to medical practitioners in the district requesting the practitioners to fill in a form stating whether, in the event of mobilisation, they would be willing to devote a portion of their time to work in the local military hospitals in order to fill the vacancies created by the withdrawal of regular Royal Army Medical Corps officers for the expeditionary force; whether this registration of doctors for military purposes is being carried out all over the country on his instructions; and, if so, with what object?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Inquiries are being made by the military authorities in various parts of the country to see how far the local civil medical practitioners can be counted on in the event of mobilisation to act in a civil capacity in hospitals in the United Kingdom in place of Royal Army Medical Corps officers until relieved by other Royal Army Medical Corps officers.

Mr. MALONE: What is the mobilisation which the War Office has in view, and for which these preparations are being made?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No particular mobilisation; any mobilisation.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is this the usual practice?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is a desirable practice.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it still the practice since this country signed the Pact to renounce war as a matter of national policy?

ROADS AND COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT, SOUTHERN COMMAND.

Mr. HUGH MORRISON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the proposed abolition of the roads and communications departments in the Salisbury district can be cancelled, or whether some arrangements can be made to prolong the employment of the ex-service men now employed by that department to mitigate the hardship of the abrupt termination of their employment on the 31st March next?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: While I regret that the permanent retention of this organisation would not be justifiable, arrangements are being made, instead of winding up the department on 31st March next, to spread the reductions over the next four months. In addition, any men for whom continuous employment on the routine maintenance of roads can be found beyond that period will be kept on and endeavours will also be made in any contracts which may be placed for re-surfacing or new road work to secure that the contractors shall give preference to those who have been engaged by the War Department on this work.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PRICES.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines why household coal is now 4s. a ton dearer than a year ago; and who is reaping the advantage?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): So far as my information goes, the retail price of house coal in Central London at the present time is, according to quality, from 1s. to 2s. per ton above the price a year ago. Quotations in the trade papers show that pit prices have advanced by at least that amount, and in some cases by more.

Mr. MORRISON: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to answer the last part of the question, as to who is reaping the advantage of this extra charge on the consumer?

Commodore KING: I have explained the difference in prices. If the pit prices have gone up by more than the retail price, I presume there is some benefit to the collieries.

Mr. MACKINDER: Did not the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an answer earlier in the year to the effect that the pit-head price was 12s., as against 16s. last year?

Mr. RADFORD: Is it not the fact that the majority of the collieries in the country, before this advance, were losing money?

Commodore KING: Oh, yes, Sir.

Mr. SHINWELL: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why it is, when the wages of the miners have been decreased and their hours increased, that the price of coal is higher than it was 18 months ago?

Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to be a matter for debate.

Mr. SHINWELL: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman approached the coal merchants in London to ascertain why this increase has been imposed?

Commodore KING: No, Sir.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman do as was done in the early part of 1924, when a similar increase was imposed on domestic coal users in London, namely, approach the coal merchants and ascertain the reason for it?

Commodore KING: As I said in my answer, while the retail prices have increased by from 1s. to 2s. per ton as compared with a year ado, the pit prices have increased by at least that amount, and, therefore, no inquiry seems to be necessary.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that, if the price of coal could be advanced 1s. or 2s. more, the wages of all men in the Kingdom would be increased?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the free-on-board prices to-day are just about equal to those of a year ago?

Commodore KING: I am not asked about free-on-board prices, but about the price of coal for sale in this country.

Mr. RICHARDSON: It is coal that is coming to London.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 31.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average price f.o.b. for coal exported from this country duing the quarter ending 31st December, 1928, and the average pit-head price for all coal sold in Great Britain during the same period?

Commodore KING: During the quarter ended December, 1928, the average declared value of British coal exported was 15s. 6d. per ton f.o.b. Complete figures relating to pithead prices of coal dis-
posable commercially are not yet available, but the estimated average price is 13s. 6d. per ton.

Mr. BATEY: How much have f.o.b. prices been reduced by the freight relief?

Mr. HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that, since rate relief was given, f.o.b. prices have been advanced?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman hope we are going to obtain permanent prosperity in the mining industry by giving coal away?

Mr. HARDIE: Has the Mines Department at any time in giving comparative prices taken into account the amount of heat?

SHIP'S FUEL (PULVERISED COAL).

Mr. WELLOCK: 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received details of the result of the experiment with pulverised coal in three of her boilers on the steamship "Hororata" on her recent journey to New Zealand; and whether that result points to the possibility of an, extensive use of pulverised coal on steamships?

Commodore KING: The ship has reached New Zealand and telegraphic reports on the experiment have been received by the owners, but the vessel's return to this country must be awaited before full information as to the results is available.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is it the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intention, when he gets the information, to circulate it?

Commodore KING: I am awaiting the report, as I said.

PROFITS AND LOSSES, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many individual collieries in Yorkshire made trade losses and profits during the quarter ended 31st December, 1928; and the highest profit per ton of coal produced at any colliery and the highest loss at any individual colliery during the same period?

Commodore KING: This information is not in my possession.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Why is the information not in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's possession, and does he not think information ought to be available in view of the ridiculously low wages of the workpeople?

Commodore KING: This information is not necessary for the purposes of my Department.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why did the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me that the collieries were losing money?

Commodore KING: Because they are losing money.

ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines what was the total amount of mining royalties payable on the coal output in Great Britain for 1928; can he state what is the estimated total sum paid in 1928 or 1927 as wayleaves for the passage of coal upshaft, for water passage and for air passage, underground, and for surface wayleaves, respectively, in and about the coal mines of Great Britain; and has his Department made any inquiry into the obstacles these various wayleave charges place upon the efficient, planning and working of the coal mines affected?

Commodore KING: The total sum paid in royalties and wayleaves by collieries in 1928 was about £5½ million. I do not have the separate figures asked for in the second part of the question. As regards the third part, I beg to remind the hon. Member that very full provision has been made by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1023, and Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, for dealing with any matter which, contrary to the national interest, interferes with the best development of coal.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that that Act, while it facilitates the proper working of minerals under certain conditions, does not affect the main evils of wayleaves, whereever minerals are worked from numerous estates, and that all these varied wayleaves are still chargeable? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that nationalisation of
minerals would abolish all these petty burdens, as we should then have only one landlord—the State?

Mr. WELLS: Can the hon. and gallant Friend state the amount paid in taxation on royalties?

Commodore KING: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.

CHARGES, WEST WICKHAM.

Mr. DAY: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport, whether he has received a protest from a number of the residents of the new housing estate, West Wickham, against the high charges made by the West Kent Electric Company for electrical current; and whether his Department is taking any action in the matter?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I do not appear to have received any such protest.

SCHEMES.

Mr. KELLY: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the schemes put forward by the Electricity Commissioners during 1927 and 1928 to the Central Electricity Board?

Colonel ASHLEY: The following five schemes were transmitted by the Electricity Commissioners to the Central Electricity Board during the years 1927 and 1928:—The Central Scotland Scheme, The South-East England Scheme, The Central England Scheme, The North-West England and North Wales Scheme, and The Mid-East England Scheme.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Has anything been done for North-East England?

Colonel ASHLEY: I believe that a scheme is being put up to the Central Board by the Commissioners.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRIDGE ACCIDENT, BLACKPOOL.

Mr. DAY: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a girder falling from a bridge which caused the bridge to collapse on a train on 6th January at Blackpool; whether he has seen the report of the in-
quest held upon the victims, in which it was stated that the steel used in the girders was foreign steel which had been rolled by English steel-makers and sold as British steel; and whether he intends to set up any further inquiry?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 18th February to the hon. Members for Hackney, Central (Sir R. Gower) and Bilston (Mr. J. Baker), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. DAY: Has the inquiry started that was mentioned in that reply?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, the inquiry has been held, and I am awaiting the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of women clerical officers in the London telephone service, accounts branch, graded A and B, respectively?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The information for which the hon. Member asks is of a confidential nature, and I regret that I do not feel able to supply it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Mr. BELLAMY: 40.
asked the Minister of Pensions, seeing that great hardship is inflicted on the families of men undergoing treatment in cases where allowances are not payable, several persons, women and children, having to live on a flat-rate pension of 8s. a week in some instances, and that a pensioner undergoing institutional treatment cannot accept or follow a remunerative employment, if he will authorise the payment of full treatment allowances in all cases of institutional treatment, whether the pensioner was in employment or not when admitted?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): Special allowances during treatment are, as my right hon. Friend has more than once explained, payable only where the man has incurred loss by having to give up a remunerative
occupation in consequence of the treatment. Allowances are nevertheless paid (both in the case of in-patient and other forms of treatment) where the man is proved to be ordinarily an earner, notwithstanding that he may have been temporarily out of employment at the time of commencing treatment. There would be no justification for the payment of these special allowances in cases where there is no evidence to indicate that, apart from the course of treatment, the men would be engaged in remunerative occupation and their ability to provide for themselves and their families is, therefore, not adversely affected by their treatment.

Mr. BELLAMY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many of these men, owing to their economic circumstances, are unable to take advantage of hospital treatment, and that others are forced to leave, before the period of treatment is complete, because of their economic circumstances and, seeing that many of them are only in receipt of 8s. a week, does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it would be advisable to give treatment allowances?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: We have no power to give it. We can only give it in cases where the man has been definitely taken away from a remunerative occupation to undergo treatment.

Mr. BELLAMY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman indicate the regulation under which they have no authority to pay a treatment allowance in any case where a man is undergoing in-patient treatment?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I cannot give the number off-hand.

DISABILITY PENSIONS (G. J. Ross).

Mr. SHEPHERD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will further consider the claim for disability pension of Mr. G. J. Ross, Louisa Street, Darlington, late trumpeter, Royal Artillery, in view of the following facts: that he was perfectly fit on enlistment in 1926, aged 14; that there is no trace of heart disease in his family; that he was discharged two years later with valvular disease of the heart of such degree that his doctor states that he will never be able to do heavy work; and that his doctor further states that in his
opinion his present complaint, if not actually due to, was certainly aggravated by his trumpet blowing; and whether, in the light of such evidence, he will reconsider this case for compensation?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The case of Mr. Ross has been fully considered, but as I have already informed the hon. Member, the Army medical authorities are satisfied that his disability is not attributable to his military service. I regret, therefore, that he is ineligible for a pension from Army funds.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this boy—he was no more than a boy—was perfectly fit before he joined the Army at the age of 14 years and that this disease only developed as a result of his service in the Army as a trumpeter?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, that is precisely what cannot be shown. Medical authorities say that the disability did not develop because of his service in the Army. It might equally have been developed if he had remained in civilian life.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the Secretary of State for War aware that in the opinion of his private doctor there is no doubt whatever that his complaint was aggravated by his service in the Army?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is one of the instances in which doctors differ.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Ought not this boy to be given the benefit of the doubt?

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any trace in his military record of the boy having had rheumatism?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD WASTE.

Sir R. THOMAS: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if any estimate has been made of the total quantity of fish, fruit, and vegetables which was wasted during the year 1928 owing to insufficient local demand and prohibitive cost of transport to areas where there was a demand; will he state what advance was made in the establishment of more canning
factories; and what steps does he propose taking to encourage the development of the canning industry in order to obviate the waste of perishable foods?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): It is impossible to make any reliable estimate of the annual wastage of perishable produce. In the last three years nine new fruit and vegetable factories have been established. During the past year steps have been taken by my Department, in collaboration with the National Food Canning Council, to extend the fish canning industry. Other projects are under consideration. I am hopeful that the prominence given to canned foods of various kinds in the Great Britain section of the displays of Empire produce organised from time to time at trade and other exhibitions will encourage the development of the canning industry by helping to popularise its products.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have any new canning factories for fish or fish products been started during that time?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am not sure whether sonic of them deal with fish, but we are examining the possibility of giving a more regular supply of bristlings, or young sprats, which we are told are required, if these factories are to start on a satisfactory basis.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Why is it impossible to get vital figures about food waste?

Mr. GUINNESS: I should be very much interested if the hon. Member could give me any suggestion as to how it could be done.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I will, with pleasure.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Is the figure higher than in previous years?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have no reliable basis to go on. We cannot estimate.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the waste of food is sufficiently serious for him to advise the Prime Minister to introduce legislation to punish offenders?

Mr. GUINNESS: With perishable produce it is inevitable, in seasons of glut, that there should be waste, and we are doing all that we can to improve market-
ing arrangements so as to prevent these gluts and see that means are taken to improve access to markets.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, if there was no waste of food, no person in this country would go hungry?

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Has consideration been given to the provision of fish meal concentrators at some of these ports where a glut occurs from time to time, and turn this unsaleable surplus into fish meal to be used as cattle food?

Mr. GUINNESS: There are proposals to deal with gluts at certain ports where at present there is no apparatus to turn fish into meal.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that these gluts occur at very long intervals and that none of them occur in the same place and is not that a very difficult matter to deal with?

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. MARY STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 42.
asked the Attorney-General whether he has now received the report of the Public Prosecutor regarding the affairs of the St. Mary Steamship Company, Limited; and, if so, will he inform the House what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have received the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the affairs of this company. After careful consideration of the facts disclosed as the result of the Board of Trade Inquiry, all of which were more than eight years old, I have come to the conclusion that neither the public interest nor the interests of the shareholders would be served by any action which it is in my power to direct. I therefore propose to take no action.

Mr. JONES: Is it not a fact that the report presented to the Public Prosecutor discloses gross frauds perpetrated by this company for years, and, if that is so, why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman take action?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The offences that were disclosed were committed eight years ago, and I am satis-
fied that the public interest would not be served by prosecuting a man who has been already in prison for 12 months and punished for other offences in the same connection.

Mr. JONES: Is the period of years that has elapsed since the frauds were committed any reason for not taking against all such menaces to the commercial integrity of the nation?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have to exercise the best of my judgment in the matter.

Mr. SHINWELL: Do the facts not reveal that private enterprise in shipping is a failure?

Mr. JONES: May I ask the Attorney-General—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General has given his answer.

Mr. JONES: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this question on the Adjournment this day week.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION (WALES).

Sir R. THOMAS: 43.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, in view of the fact that 62,182 acres of woodlands in Wales and Monmouthshire were felled or devastated during the War, and that only 15,824 acres have since been replanted by the Forestry Commission, what proportion of this total acreage the Commission proposes to replant and within what period of time; and particularly to state what are the Commission's plans as regards the five counties of Anglesey, Cardigan, Denbigh, Flint, and Pembroke, in which none of the area felled or devastated, amounting to 14,888 acres, has as yet been replanted by the Commission?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The Report on the Census of Woodlands, 1924, shows 62,182 acres felled or devastated in Wales and Monmouthshire. This area does not belong to the Forestry Commission, but on land which the Commission have acquired in Wales and Monmouthshire they have planted 17,584 acres. The acreage to be planted in
future will depend on the extent of the land acquired and the funds available. In Cardiganshire the Commission are planting 153 acres this season and they are negotiating for the acquisition of further land in Cardiganshire and also for land in Denbighshire. No land has yet been acquired in the other three counties named.

Sir R. THOMAS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: No, I cannot say that. The land is examined and acquired, if it is suitable as far as our funds permit.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Are the Commissioners considering the question of planting the hillsides of Wales with the object of producing British pit props in view of the question and answer about steel props yesterday.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Yes, Sir.

Sir R. THOMAS: Having regard to the reply that the planting of these trees depends upon the funds that are available, may I ask why Cardiganshire and Denbighshire should be favoured at the expense of Anglesey?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: There is no question of favouring one locality against another.

Sir R. THOMAS: May I very respectfully ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman what he means by only a certain amount of funds being at his disposal and some of these funds having been given to two Welsh counties and not to the other three?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: It is a question of policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

FORESTRY WORKERS (C. REED).

Mr. MARDY JONES: 44.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he is aware that an unemployed miner, Mr. Charles Reed, of 35, Collwyn Street, Coed Ely, Llantrisant, was recently employed by the Forestry Commissioners for a period of nine months; that during the whole of that period his employers did not make any contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund for
this man or deduct any contributions out of his wages, with the result that this man has ever since been unable to qualify for unemployment benefits, having failed to procure other work since he ceased to be required by the Forestry Commissioners; and what are the reasons for this course, and does it apply in all like cases for the period unemployed workers are found temporary employment by his Department?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Mr. Charles Reed was formerly employed by the Forestry Commissioners and no contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund were made during the period of such employment, the reason being that the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, excludes from unemployment insurance persons employed in agriculture, including horticulture and forestry. I, however, refer to the answer to a question by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. W. Robinson) which was given on the 12th instant by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

Mr. JONES: In view of the fact that this man was employed by the Forestry Commissioners for a continuous period of nine months, why is it that some arrangement was not made? If the law is against it, why do you not amend it? Are you aware of the fact that this man who was in the employ of your Department for nine months was unable to qualify afterwards for unemployment benefit, having failed to procure other work, and that he was unable to get poor relief or unemployment relief, or anything else.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I am not aware of that fact.

Mr. JONES: If I bring the facts before the hon. and gallant Gentleman, will he assist me to get this man some employment?

STATISTICS (SOUTH WALES).

Mr. JOHN: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners transferred under the Government's transference scheme from South Wales to London; the number transferred for temporary employment; the number of miners who have applied for benefit; the number refused; and the number in receipt of unemployment benefit at present?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I regret there are no statistics available giving the detailed information desired.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it part of the right hon. Gentleman's policy to see that these men who are transferred to other areas get the local rate of wages?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, certainly.

Mr. SHINWELL: Can the Minister of Labour reply to the first part of the question, as to the number of miners transferred from South Wales to London?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. Those are the figures that I have not got. I can give the hon. Member the total number of men transferred from South Wales, but not the number who have gone to London. The total number transferred through the Employment Exchanges from South Wales to other districts since the Prime Minister's appeal is 4,500, exclusive of other methods of transfer.

Mr. R. MORRISON: May I ask whether men who come from mining areas to take employment in other districts and then lose their employment have their fares paid to their homes?

Mr. BARKER: Can the Minister of Labour tell us the number of men transferred to London and elsewhere who have returned to their own districts?

Mr. JOHN: 60.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will provide statistics showing the number of miners who have been transferred from the Rhondda Valley under the Government's transference scheme; the number sent to training centres for migration and work in this country; the number who have been sent overseas; and the number found work, in this country, from the training centres?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am obtaining such information as is available, and will let the hon. Member have it as soon as possible.

Mr. JOHN: 61.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registered at the Employment Exchanges of Treorchy, Tonypandy, Ferndale and Porth, respectively, on 31st January, 1928 and 31st January, 1929; the number
in receipt of unemployment benefit on the above dates; and the number refused unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, on the ground of the applicant not genuinely seeking work?

Persons on the Registers of Certain Employment Exchanges.


—
Treorchy.
Tonypandy.
Ferndale.
Porth.


23rd Jan., 1928.
21st Jan., 1929.
23rd Jan., 1928.
21st Jan., 1929.
23rd Jan., 1928.
21st Jan., 1929.
23rd Jan., 1928.
21st Jan., 1929.


Total number on Registers
1,891
1,915
3,342
4,126
6,838
2,389
3,585
1,872


Claims admitted and under consideration
1,874
1,811
3,210
3,800
6,758
2,067
3,514
1,810


Claims disallowed by Insurance Officers in the period 19th April, 1928 to 11th February, 1929, on the ground "not genuinely seeking work."
173
—
84
—
168
—
207
—

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES (COMPENSATION).

Mr. RADFORD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, owing to the operation of Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1925, many people of small means who were owner-occupiers of reasonably sound houses or small shops, situate in slum areas, have received no compensation at, all for their property when acquired by the local authority; and whether, having regard to the fact that other schemes are under consideration by the Minister of Health, which, if carried out, will involve hardship on owner-occupiers in the area of such schemes, he will give early facilities for the passing of the Bill dealing with the matter presented by the hon. Member for Central Hackney?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Sir R. Gower) on the 14th November last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. RADFORD: In view of the unanimity of opinion in all parts of the House in regard to the injustice now being perpetrated, does my right hon. Friend not agree that legislation on the question could be passed in a very few hours?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot assent to that suggestion. It is true that there is a good deal of opinion as to the injustice, but there is a great difference of opinion as to the remedy.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not true that the whole reason for the legislation being introduced was in order to stop the profiteering going on, and which still is going on to a disgraceful extent, in slum property, and is not that, the real difficulty in the occasional and exceptional cases referred to by the hon. Member?

Sir K. WOOD: That may be so, but I think it must be said that there is injustice in this case which ought to be remedied.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH LOYALISTS (PAYMENTS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now state the total sum that has been paid to Irish loyalists, and the estimated sum required to meet the full claims?

Mr. THURTLE: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost to the Exchequer of the ex gratia grants made and to be made in the recommendations of the Irish Grants Committee, in accordance with the latest decision of the Government?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The total sum so far paid in respect of recommendations made by the Irish Grants Committee is £1,042,000. The additional sum required for payment in full of the recommendations already received is approximately £298,000. I am not in a position to give an accurate estimate of the total sum to which the Committee's recommendations will amount.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it the intention of the Government to supply a list of claimants, with the amount claimed, before the next Supplementary Estimate is brought before the House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is the first time that I have heard of such a suggestion.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the recent discussion, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of publishing a list of the claimants, and the amounts claimed, before asking for the Vote?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister may desire to answer both questions at once.

Major COLFOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is anticipated that the Committee will have finished the investigation of all the claims, and when, therefore, the Government will know their total liability in this matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we not entitled to a reply to my question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a supplementary question, which raises entirely new issues. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Pardon me. If hon. Members will read the question, they will see that there is no reference in it as to whether a list of the parties concerned should be published or not. It is an entirely new question which has been asked as a supplementary question. I am perfectly prepared to answer the question, but I must have the requisite notice.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If we organise a revolt on the Government back benches, will there be a generous reply?

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the granting of
this increased sum will have a very harmful effect upon the whole cause of public economy?

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Cabinet have considered these claims, will he not disclose to the House of Commons the information on which the Cabinet came to their own decision?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That question clearly arises out of the altogether irrelevant supplementary question which I have just said I cannot answer without notice.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: On a point of Order. Is it in order, in view of the wording of the question, which refers to "full claims," to ask as a supplementary question whether the Government have the information as to what are these "full claims"? May I press that as a supplementary question, and ask that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should reply to it?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may ask a question, but it does not follow that it will be answered.

Mr. SHINWELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who are the Irish loyalists who are mentioned in the question?

Mr. WILLIAMS: If I put a question upon the Order Paper with respect to the claims, will the right hon. Gentleman reply?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member puts a question down, I am bound to reply, but not necessarily in the way that he would like.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS.

GOVERNMENT MEASURES.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the attention of the Government has been called to the recently issued Report on investigations in the coalfields of South Wales and Monmouthshire by the chief inspector of the Ministry of Health; and what further steps it is proposed to take to counteract the destructive effects of idleness in the distressed areas?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The measures which the Government are taking in order to deal with the position in the distressed areas have been stated in the House on several occasions. The most recent occasion was the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates of the Ministry of Labour on the 11th February, to which I would refer my Noble Friend.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chief inspector said that it would be nothing short of a miracle if the present policy of transference which has been adopted by the Government should prove an effective remedy for the conditions in South Wales? May I ask, most respectfully, whether the Government will consider the raising of a loan for the purpose of national development, in order that the destructive effects of idleness may be mitigated for these unemployed people?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I quite sympathise with the point of view which my Noble Friend puts forward, but he will understand that Question Time is not the moment when these extremely grave and national issues can be debated.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that the destructive effects of idleness are discovered only among the poor?

Sir ALFRED HOPKINSON: Has the attention of the Government been called to the steps that have been taken by the Society of Friends in South Wales in enabling people to acquire and work garden allotments? Will that work have the favourable consideration of the Government, especially having regard to its good effects upon the physical and moral welfare of the people? Has the attention of the Government been called to the great success of the experiments in that direction which have been undertaken in the County of Nottingham by the Board of Agriculture?

Major COLFOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that, in spite of the many well-organised opportunities for migration to the Dominions which have been offered to these men, they have persistently refused to go? [Interruption.]

LORD MAYOR'S FUND.

Mr. MALONE: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the total amount which has been paid oat by the State to the Lord's Mayor's Fund for the distressed mining areas?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): My right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to the answer which he gave to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) yesterday, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. MALONE: May I ask whether we can be informed when the new Supplementary Estimate will be presented to the House?

Duchess of ATHOLL: My Noble Friend pointed out yesterday that that is a question for the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION.

Mr. TINKER: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage of direct and indirect taxation up to the end of the financial year 1927–28?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The proportion of the yield of indirect taxes to total tax revenue in the year ended 31st March, 1928, was 35.27 per cent. Of this figure alcohol, tobacco and entertainments accounted for 28.63 per cent., silk, betting and McKenna Duties for 1.72 per cent. and sugar, tea, coffee, cocoa, etc., for 4.92 per cent. I will circulate the figures for earlier years in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I may say that the taxation of necessaries such as sugar, tea, cocoa, etc., has fallen from 8.33 per cent. in 1924 to 4.92 per cent. in 1928.

Mr. TINKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures for indirect taxation have fallen or risen as compared with last year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am going to circulate a table for the information of the hon. Gentleman and of the House, which takes into consideration the whole six years and shows in the different groups the exact rise and fall, and the percentages.

Mr. TAYLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman include in the table the figures for 1923?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The return which I am giving deals only with 1914 and with the last five years. That includes the year in which the friends of the hon. Member were in power.

Percentages of Total Tax Revenue raised by Indirect and Direct Taxation.


—
Financial Year ended 31st March.


1914.
1924.
1925.
1926.
1927.
1928.



Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
 Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.


Alcohol, Tobacco and Entertainments (Old Sumptuary Duties).
35.00
27.85
28.10
28.56
29.06
28.63


Silk, Betting and McKenna Duties (New Sumptuary Duties).
—
.36
.01
.63
1.36
1.72


Sugar, Tea, Coffee, Cocoa, etc.
7.50
8.33
4.96
4.79
5.12
4.92


Total Indirect Taxes
42.50
36.54
33.07
33.98
35.54
35.27


Total Direct Taxes
57.50
63.46
66.93
66.02
64.46
64.73



100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Mr. STEPHEN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount paid in respect of claims dealt with by the Sumner Commission; the average percentage of the total amount claimed that was actually paid; how these payments compare with those proposed in respect of the Irish claims; and whether he will consider making financial provision for the additional amount to put the Sumner claimants on the same basis as the Irish claimants?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The total amount paid in respect of claims dealt with by the Sumner Commission is £4,904,647. It is not possible to state the average percentage of the amount paid to the amount claimed, since in many cases the claims received did not specify any exact sum. As has been repeatedly stated by successive Governments during recent years, the amount allocated from voted moneys by way of compensation for damage by enemy action must be regarded as final, and the Government see no reason to reopen this question in consequence of the

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman said "etc." What does he mean by "etc"?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I said "tea, coffee, cocoa, etc." The principal item in the "etc." is chicory.

Following are the figures:

view which the House took about the awards recommended by the Irish Grants Committee.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of last week, where he will find many cogent reasons for reopening this question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. Reasons for not reopening it.

Captain MACMILLAN: How does the right hon. Gentleman know what view the House took?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It has been borne in upon me from various quarters, both by the speeches which were made in the course of the Debate, and by the obvious desire of the party opposite that this money should be paid, that the Government would do well to defer to the assent of the House of Commons.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the seamen who suffered during the War were promised, again and again, that they would be compensated?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman did refer to it in order to justify his action. May I put the supplementary question to him, because it does seem to be relevant?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot deal with cases of which I have not had notice. My argument was that there are many hard cases, but it had no weight with hon. Members opposite.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-ASSISTANT CLERKS).

Captain FRASER: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will consider the position of ex-assistant clerk (abstractors) now serving as clerical officers in the Civil Service who joined His Majesty's forces during the Great War arid who, prior thereto, qualified in open competitive examinations for second division clerkships; and whether, in view of the provisions of Clause 15 of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1898, and of the fact that clerks of the old second division mainly fill the executive and higher clerical grades of the service, consideration will be given to the question of promoting the ex-assistant clerks in question forthwith to posts in those grades, irrespective of any age limitations or of the particular Departments in which these officers are now serving?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The promotion of clerical officers to the executive and higher clerical grades of the Civil Service cars be dealt with on no other basis than their individual fitness for such promotion. My hon. and gallant Friend will agree that there can be no justification for the exceptional promotion of members of the clerical class of ex-assistant clerk origin merely on the ground that they qualified but were unsuccessful at the examinations referred to.

Captain FRASER: Will my hon. Friend say whether it is a fact that certain pre-War civil servants who went through three or four years of war lost thereby their opportunity for promotion, and whether young people are being taken into the service in places which these ex-service men could fill?

Mr. SAMUEL: I think if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at Clause 45 of the Order in Council issued on the 10th January, 1910, of which I will send him a copy, he will see that his question is better answered than I could answer it by a reply to his supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FLYING SERVICES, LIMITED.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will publish, for the information of the House, the whole of his agreement with National Flying Services, Limited, together with any collateral or interpretative terms embodied in letters or minutes?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The agreement, which will be self-contained, may not be signed for some time to come, and meanwhile an outline of the essential points has been published in the White Paper, Cmd. 3264. It is not customary to issue a second White Paper in such a case, but if there is any general desire on the part of hon. Members to see the actual terms of the agreement when completed, I shall be glad to arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

Captain GARRO-JONES: What will be the method of indicating a general desire to the right hon. Gentleman? What would satisfy him that there is a general desire?

Sir S. HOARE: The usual way.

Captain GARRO-JONES: What is that?

Sir S. HOARE: I must be satisfied that a substantial number of Members desire it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are already in existence any collateral terms to the proposed agreement?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. All the conditions will be included in the agreement, but I have already stated the main outline.

Major COLFOX: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider it a substantial
measure of agreement if the whole of the Liberal party happened to be agreed upon this matter?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir. I am inclined to think that I should.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEATHER CHANGES (WARNINGS).

Mr. MALONE: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Meteorological Office had knowledge of the approach of the recent exceptionally cold spell; and whether it is possible to issue warnings to the public from the Meteorological Office in time to prevent the inconvenience and damage caused by the freezing and bursting of water pipes and boilers?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first part of the question, the meteorological conditions prior to the onset of the recent cold weather were such that it was impossible to give any lengthy warning of the extreme fall in temperature, but the Meteorological Office did issue a forecast on the morning of 11th February, stating that very low temperatures with frost both by day and by night would be experienced in most parts of Great Britain except in the extreme south-west districts. As regards the second part, the Meteorological Office issues warnings of changes of weather as soon as the conditions warrant definite statements, but it is not always possible to forecast rapid changes, especially those which occur in mid-winter.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Has the Minister of Air any information about possible meteorological changes next June?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONDENSED SKIMMED MILK.

Mr. REMER: 57.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that among certain people the impression is current that the words ordered to be printed on imported condensed skimmed milk tins, "Unfit for Infants," means that this so-called milk is too rich for infants; and will he issue a memorandum to the effect that this material has little or no food value?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is not aware of the existence of the impression mentioned by my hon. Friend, and seeing that the tins are declared to contain the equivalent of so much skimmed milk with sugar added he does not see how it can have arisen. Although condensed skimmed milk, like many other foods, is devoid of milk fat and is therefore unsuitable for babies, it still possesses definite nutritive value and my right hon. Friend does not think it is necessary to issue a memorandum on the subject.

Mr. REMER: May I ask whether it is not the case that farmers have to undergo considerable trouble in carrying out the orders of his Department, and will he make sure that the public know the exact food value of this product?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

COAL AND IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES.

Mr. CLARRY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that in South Wales and Monmouthshire the rail freight relief under the industrial de-rating arrangements upon coal for consumption in iron and steel works is not being passed on to these industries but is being retained by the collieries, which is not in accord with Government pronouncements on the subject; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the promised assistance to the iron and steel industries becomes effective?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Government's views regarding the distribution of the freight reliefs between the industries concerned are stated in the reply of the Minister of Transport to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir W. Preston) on 12th December, of which I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. SHINWELL: Was it not intended by the Government that this relief should be passed on to the consumer; and can the hon. Member make such arrangements as will fulfil the original promise of the Government?

Mr. WILLIAMS: A. full statement of the whole policy has already been given, and I am referring the hon. Member to the reply.

ASSESSMENTS, SCOTLAND.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has issued to assessors any instructions or memorandum with regard to their duties under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1928; and whether he will lay any such instructions upon the Table of the House?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): A memorandum explanatory of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, was issued in November, 1928, for the information of assessors in Scotland and was then placed on sale, price, one penny. I am quite prepared to lay it on the Table.

Mr. SHINWELL: May we take it that the memorandum includes a definition of all the involved points in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act; and may I ask whether the Lord Advocate is aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland stated last week that many knotty points will have to be dealt with by the assessors subsequently?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The assessors are very skilled persons, and the memorandum contains all the information necessary to help them.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that they are finding some difficulty even now in connection with one-man businesses, and will not the Secretary of State bring out fresh, more lucid, and fuller information?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I have no information on that point, but I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it.

INDUSTRIAL LANDS AND HERITAGES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of relief from rates which will accrue to the owner of industrial lands and heritages; and what amount will accrue to tenants of such lands and heritages under the relief proposed in the Local Government (Scotland) Bill?

The LORD ADVOCATE: On the basis of the rates levied in 1927–28 it is estimated that the amount of relief from rates that will accrue to the owners of industrial lands and heritages in Scotland will be £617,000 and to the occupiers of such lands and heritages £983,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

BRACKEN DISEASE.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether in view of the economic importance of the destruction of bracken, he is investigating the spread of a parasite or fungus, which in many districts of Scotland is killing the bracken, in order to determine whether this disease is likely to be harmful to other vegetation or whether it can be artificially spread and used as a weapon against bracken in other districts?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on the 18th instant by the Minister of Agriculture to a question on this subject addressed to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General H. Brown). Investigations into the various aspects of the disease, and in particular into the nature and life history of the fungus associated with it, are at present proceeding under the direction of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. It is too early yet to make any definite statement in regard to the possibility of making use of the disease for the eradication or control of bracken or as to its effect on other vegetation. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a pamphlet which gives information regarding the work already done in Scotland in connection with the investigation of the disease.

DEER.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the chairman of the conference between representatives of certain Scottish agricultural organisations, which assembled on the 5th December to discuss the increase of deer in the Highlands of Scotland, reported to him what took place; whether the conference expressed any opinion regarding the necessity of legislation in accordance with the Report of the Deer Forest Commission of 1921; and what action the Government proposes to take?

The LORD ADVOCATE: My right hon. Friend has received a report of the proceedings of the conference referred to, and the matter was dealt with in the reply given to a question by the hon. and gallant Member on the 18th December. The representatives present at the conference expressed themselves in favour of legislation to give effect to proposals in the Report of 1921 by the Departmental Committee on Deer Forests, but as indicated in the reply of the 18th December, my right hon. Friend cannot at present give an undertaking with regard to further legislation.

REFUSE DUMP, BROUGHTY FERRY.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to protests from residents at Broughty Ferry against the dumping of refuse on the sands there; and whether he proposes to hold any public inquiry?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Department of Health for Scotland have had this matter under consideration, and reports from their Inspector of Public Cleansing show that the dump referred to is being satisfactorily conducted. Certain minor suggestions for improvement have been communicated to the local authority with a view to the removal of any possible objections. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend does not consider that a public inquiry is necessary.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Seeing that I submitted such representations to the Department direct a week ago, why have I had no reply at all?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The matter is in the course of being considered, and a reply is duly coming to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is it fair that we should have to submit questions in the House so as to get more prompt replies?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Not at all.

MATERNITY CENTRES.

Mr. STEPHEN: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of maternity centres in Scotland; the total number of mothers who were in
attendance at these centres during last year; the number who applied for food or other forms of help; and the total amount expended in this way apart from administrative expenses?

The LORD ADVOCATE: As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

At the end of 1928 there were 193 maternity and child welfare centres in operation in Scotland. During the year ended the 31st December, 1927, the total number of mothers who attended the centres for advice or treatment or for food and milk was approximately 55,000. The number of applications for food and milk was 17,208 in respect of mothers and 44,598 in respect of children. As regards the last part of the question, the total expenditure on food and milk for the year ended the 15th day of May, 1928, was £52,864. Complete information as to other forms of help sought is not available, but the total expenditure under schemes of maternity service and child welfare, excluding food and milk and administrative expenses, was £205,931.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. STEPHEN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of widows in Scotland and Glasgow, respectively, who receive pensions under the 1925 Act on the condition that they had children under 14 years of age, and in each case the number of such widows who have since ceased to receive pensions because their children have reached the age of 14 years and six months?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Up to the 21st February, 1929, a total of 16,211 widows in Scotland, whose title depended on there being children under the age of 14, had been granted pensions and of these widows approximately 4,300 had ceased to be entitled because their children had reached the age of 14½. Corresponding figures for Glasgow are not available as the records are not arranged on a territorial basis.

Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the hardship that is resulting to these widows who have lost their pensions, will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking action so as to make provision for them?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That would mean legislation.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend to the Secretary of State for Scotland the need for legislation?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is not part of my duty, but I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN (KABUL EVACUATIONS).

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he could make a statement respecting the evacuation by the British representatives and others from Kabul?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have been asked to reply. I am glad to say that the evacuation of the last remaining members of the staff of the British Legation was successfully effected yesterday. Sir Francis Humphrys, in paying a warm tribute to the remarkable smoothness and efficiency with which the Royal Air Force have carried out this arduous undertaking, has telegraphed as follows:
The Royal Air Force have performed an historic achievement. They have conveyed 586 persons in 82 aeroplanes without a single mishap to passengers since the 23rd December, over mountainous country in the depths of winter at an average height of 10,000 feet. Conditions have always been difficult and for the last

two days almost insuperable on account of the heavy fall of snow."

I am sure the House will cordially endorse this tribute. In the early stages of the operations, the aircraft which first established touch with the Legation were repeatedly under fire and one machine was shot down over Kabul, though its pilot was fortunately unhurt and has since rendered Sir Francis Humphrys invaluable assistance. The Royal Air Force personnel engaged have throughout flown over this wild border country unarmed. Recently, owing to the extreme severity of the weather conditions, with very low temperatures prevailing, accompanied by heavy snowfalls, the task of all concerned has been rendered exceptionally difficult and dangerous, alike in the air and on the ground. One machine had a forced landing through the engine actually freezing up whilst in flight and its two occupants were for some clays in the hands of tribesmen, though subsequently successfully evacuated by air.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business Bet down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, may be taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[Mr. Churchill.]

The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 99.

Division No. 236.]
AYES.
[3.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Eden, Captain Anthony


Alexander, E. E (Leyton)
Bullock, Captain M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Campbell, E. T.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ellis, R. G.


Apsley, Lord
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
England, Colonel A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset. Weston-s.-M.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Chapman, Sir S.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Christie, J. A.
Fermoy, Lord


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fielden, E. B.


Berry, Sir George
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Clarry, Reginald George
Forestier-Walker, Sir L,


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Clayton, G. C.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bowater, Col. sir T. Vansittart
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Briggs, J. Harold
Couper, J. B.
Gates, Percy


Briscoe, Richard George
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Brittain, Sir Harry
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Buchan, John
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Hamilton, Sir George
Macmillan, Captain H.
Salmon, Major I.


Hammersley, S. S.
Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sandon, Lord


Harrison, G. J. C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hartington, Marquess of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Savery, S. S


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Margesson, Captain D.
Shepperson, E. W.


Haslam, Henry C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ.,Belfst)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smithers, Waldron


Hilton, Cecil
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cilve
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Templeton, W. P.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Nichoison,Col.Rt.Hon.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hurd, Percy A.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hurst, Gerald B.
Nuttall, Ellis
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Oakley, T.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Iveagh, Countess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ward Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Watson, Sir P. (Pudsey and Otley)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lamb, J. Q.
Pownall Sir Assheton
Watts, Sir Thomas


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Preston, William
Wells, S. R.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Pringle, J. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Loder, J. de V.
Radford, E. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Long, Major Eric
Raine, Sir Walter
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Looker, Herbert William
Ramsden, E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lougher, Lewis
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Womersley, W. J.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Remer, J. R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lumley, L. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)



MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ropner, Major L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ross, R. D.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


MacIntyre, Ian
Rungles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Major Sir William Cope.


McLean, Major A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Barr, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scurr, John


Bellamy, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, James


Benn, Wedgwood
Kennedy, T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shield, G. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Lansbury, George
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromfield, William
Lawrence, Susan
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Longbottom, A. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Clarke, A. B.
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R. (Aberavon)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Mackinder, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Day, Harry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thurtle, Ernest


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hirst, G. H.
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson.


Question put, and agreed to.

FIRE BRIGADE PENSIONS.

Mr. PALIN: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Section 18 of the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925.
This is a very short, but very important Bill. It consists of two Clauses and its purpose is to amend that Section of the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, which provides for the return of deductions made from firemen's pay in certain cases. The effective part of the Bill reads as follows:
Where a professional fireman dies during his period of service the local authority shall pay to his widow, or next of kin, if any, the whole of the rateable deductions which have been made from his pay, together with any sum paid by him in respect of past pensionable service within the meaning of this Act.
By an unaccountable oversight, the principal Act, while making provision for the return of contributions in the event of the man dying in the service, made no provision for the return of contributions in the event of the man dying a natural death. It did make provision that past service might be paid for by claiming back contributions to cover that service. Therefore, an injustice arises. I have had one case brought to my notice in which a man has paid as much as £80 to cover past service, but his widow and children were not entitled to draw back one single penny because he died a natural death. I feel sure the House will give leave to introduce a Measure which will rectify this serious oversight.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Palin, Mr. March, Mr. Thurtle, Mr. R. Richardson, Mr. Robert Wilson, and Mr. Lowth.

FIRE BRIGADE PENSIONS BILL,

"to amend section eighteen of the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 7th March, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

RECONSTITUTED CREAM BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928).

Revised Estimate presented of a further Sum required in the year ending 31st March, 1929 for Dominion Services [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

LLANELLY CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Savings Banks Bill): Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Couper, Captain Garro-Jones, Mr. Gillett, Mr. E. C. Grenfell, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Mr. Skelton, and Mr. Robert Young.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71a.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to confirm an Agreement, dated the 14th day of December, 1928, and made between the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland for continuing the Agreement confirmed by the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act, 1926; and to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sum certified by the Joint Exchequer Board to be payable after the 31st day of March, 1930, from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom under the last-mentioned Agreement as so continued."—(King's Recommendation Signified).

4.0 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): This Resolution is necessary in order to give legislative sanction to the agreement of December, 1928, which makes permanent the temporary agreement of 1926. The White Papers which contain the detailed information on the subject we are about to discuss are No. 3271 of 1928 and No. 2586 of 1926 If hon. Members have those Papers in their hands, it will assist them, and, at the same time it will not be necessary to detain the Committee with a long explanation of what is in those Papers. The agreement of 1928 makes permanent the agreement of 1926, which was of a temporary nature, but in the 1928 agreement an arrangement is imported which will be beneficial to the British Exchequer, in that the Government of Northern Ireland will by degrees, by instalments, extinguish the excess debt of the Northern Ireland Fund, which amounts, in round figures, to £3,424,000. That is up to 1925. Those hon. Members who heard the Debate of 1926 will remember that it was there referred to, and it was held in suspense from that date to 1928. It is now being dealt with in the arrangement we have now made in this way. It will be written off by instalments by the
Government of Northern Ireland, with the result that the benefit accruing year after year to the British Exchequer until the amount is extinguished, wilt ultimately be £113,000 a year. The object of the agreement is, and always has been, that unemployment benefits and contributions in Northern Ireland should be maintained on the same level as in Great Britain. The position which necessitates this legislation is due to the following fact: The insured population of Northern Ireland is to a large extent contained in two trades—linen and shipbuilding. The fact—an actuarially unfortunate one—is that one-third of the insured population is associated with these two trades. Owing to that fact, the percentage of unemployment in Northern Ireland has been persistently greater than in Great Britain.
If I put the following facts to the Committee, I think perhaps it will bring out the point. Let me take shipbuilding. I extracted last night the figures for the years 1922 to 1928 with reference to unemployment in that trade. The figures ranged from 21 per cent. to 44 per cent., and they are now 24 per cent. In the linen industry, they vary from 7 per cent. to the extraordinary figure of 42 per cent., and even now they are 17 per cent. Therefore, on the whole, the unemployment figures have been persistently bad in Northern Ireland, and worse than they are here. Let me give the figure of unemployment for Northern Ireland in 1927. It was 13 per cent. whereas in Great Britain it was 9½ per cent. In 1928, the figure for Northern Ireland was 17 per cent. as contrasted with Great Britain's 10½ per cent. In Northern Ireland there is a small population and a small area, and the figures for unemployment in 1928 are 17 per cent. as compared with 10½ per cent. for Great Britain. It follows quite naturally that with a smaller insured area and a larger unemployment figure, it would not be possible for Northern Ireland if it went on without assistance, to maintain benefits and contributions at the same rate as obtain here.
Let me make a further comparison. Take one of our most distressed areas—the north-east area of England. There is an insured population there eight times as large as in Northern Ireland, and with the varieties and diversities of trade in north-east England the unemployment
figure is only 15½ per cent. as against 17 per cent. in Northern Ireland. Therefore, with respect to the small area in Northern Ireland from which contributions can be gathered, we have to propose some businesslike means by which we can get the benefits, contributions and funds of Northern Ireland on a parity with the similar organisation of Great Britain. We did that in 1926. The arrangement then was of a temporary nature. Under the agreement the Northern Ireland Fund remains separate, and it will continue to remain separate, and Great Britain will help the fund by contributions with the result that the benefits and contributions remain the same as they are here. I have sketched that in rapidly and with a very broad brush, but if hon. Members will look at Command Papers 2588 and 3271 they will see that the proposals I have just outlined to the Committee are set forth there in detail. This proposal will cost Great Britain about two-thirds of the expenditure necessary to keep the Northern Ireland Fund in a position to pay the same benefits for the same contributions as in Great Britain. In 1926 it was hoped that employment and conditions might so improve that an extension of the temporary agreement to one of a permanent nature might not have been necessary. Experience, however, has shown us that the problem of a restricted insured population with which we have to deal is a permanent one. As far as human ingenuity can foresee, these conditions of unemployment in Northern Ireland as compared with this country are not likely to alter so materially as to vary the basis upon which we are now making these proposals; that is, the restricted size of the insured population of Northern Ireland and the employment of a large part of it in the two trades of linen and shipbuilding is, we think, a permanent feature of the situation. It is just possible that the introduction of some luxury industry like artificial silk might have an effect, but there is nothing to go upon which would lead us to think that these two trades will not remain the two main trades of Ulster.
The Opposition have put an Amendment on the Paper which would limit the operation of this Measure to 31st March, 1931. We are, however, convinced that the problem of restricted size of insured
population is as far as can be seen, a permanent one. Hon. Members opposite say that it can be met by a temporary method—that you can remedy a permanent malady by a temporary measure. The problem is that the insured population is only 252,000. That is the main crux of the problem. We cannot hope for a larger area from which to get contributions. We of course expect a reduction in the unemployment figures, but we cannot see any reason to hope that the number of insured persons will materially increase, or that they will be employed in different trades. Therefore, we say it is hopeless to attempt, as the Amendment would attempt, to remedy what we think is a permanent difficulty by a temporary measure. Accordingly, we seek to make the 1926 Agreement permanent, with the beneficial addition, as I have explained, of the Northern Ireland Government relieving the fund of the £3,424,000 excess debt by annual instalments, which will ensure a growing relief to the Imperial Exchequer, ultimately amounting to £113,000 a year.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words:
subject to the modification that provision be made for the repayment of any sums paid.
It would have been much more interesting if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken upon himself the responsibility of moving this Resolution. One can quite understand, in the present circumstances, the unwillingness of the right hon. Gentleman to intervene in a proposal of this character. I hope, however, that the Committee may have the pleasure of hearing his version of this proposal before the Debate comes to an end. Perhaps the courage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now fortified by the presence of the Prime Minister, or it may be that the Prime Minister has entered the House for the purpose of preventing the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeating the humiliating spectacle of a week ago. This proposal is, except in one respect, just a repetition of the proposal which we had before the House exactly three years ago. I spoke at some length in the Debate upon that proposal, and it will not be necessary for me to repeat much of what I said on that occasion.
The only difference between the proposal of three years ago and the proposal which is now submitted is that we are now asked to make permanent the temporary agreement of 1926. I would ask the Committee to note that that agreement does not expire till March, 1930. What then can be the reason why the Government are proposing now, 12 months before the expiration of the agreement, to give it a permanent character? The explanation is not difficult to find. The Tory party to-day is what the Tory party was when Lord George Hamilton said that it was the business of the Tory party to look after its friends when it was in office and to take steps to see that their interests would be safeguarded when the Tories were out of office. We have in this proposal a confession by the Government that they do not expect to be in office in March, 1930, and no doubt, under the importunities of the Ulster loyalists, they are making this proposal this afternoon. We had an instance last week of the pressure which is being constantly brought to bear upon the British Government to hand over public monies to their loyal friends in Ireland. The loyalty of the Ulster Unionists is always measured by the amount of money they can extort from the British taxpayer.
In the Debate that took place three years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that Ulster's contribution to the United Kingdom expenditure had been reduced from the Treaty figure of about £7,000,000 a year to under £3,000,000 a year, and that even that £3,000,000 a year had not been paid. The average of the preceding years, that is, the years preceding the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking three years ago, had been something like £1,250,000. The Government of Northern Ireland, ever since that Parliament was established, has been trying to evade the responsibility it accepted when that Government was established, and this is not the first occasion upon which services for which the Northern Ireland Government is responsible have been placed upon the Imperial Exchequer. I remember that on the last occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred, first, to the notorious scandal of the police charges, which were nothing less than a camouflaged grant for unem-
ployment. And there was the equally scandalous grant for the erection of palatial Government offices and Parliament House for Ulster.
I speak now of a matter upon which I have no knowledge beyond what has appeared in the newspapers during the last few days. I understand that the Government of Northern Ireland is going to propose legislation on the lines of the de-rating proposals which have been applied to Great Britain and a Press statement, or rather a statement in the Press, attributes to a Member of the Ulster Parliament the statement that the whole of the cost of that, £750,000 a year, will be secured from the Imperial Exchequer. Whether that be so or not, I do not know, but I know Ulster, and it will not be for want of demands from the Ulster Government if that proposal falls through. Now, to speak more specifically upon the proposal before the Committee, that proposal was submitted to the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he refused to have anything at all to do with it, to his credit. It was then submitted to his successor—a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer—who also refused to have anything to do with it. They did not submit it to me, but when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer took office the demands of the Ulster Government were renewed, the pliable Chancellor of the Exchequer succumbed, and we had the proposal of three years ago.
I am prepared to concede this, that the industrial conditions of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the interlocking of trade union organisation, are such that I think it would have been better if the Unemployment Insurance Act had been retained as a reserved service and had been administered as common to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but that was not done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remember, gave reasons why, I will not say it was undesirable to do it, but at any rate he gave reasons explaining the difficulties of one unemployment scheme commonly administered for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the chief of which was that it would have been difficult to administer the scheme in Northern Ireland, if we had amalgamated the whole scheme; but if that be the case, it is an objection which
applies with far greater force to the proposal which is now being submitted, because we are handing over to the Government of Northern Ireland these sums every year, which may amount to £1,000,000 a year—I shall have something to say about that later—and we have no control at all over the administration of this fund.
It is quite true that one of the Ministers of Northern Ireland, in a letter which is attached to this White Paper, says that the Government of Northern Ireland will be quite willing at all times to allow the British Government to investigate the administration of the Unemployment Fund, but at this point I would like to put a question. This matter was raised three years ago and, if I remember rightly, a sort of White Paper was then promised, which would have given us particulars about the administration of the Unemployment Fund in Northern Ireland. The reason why that demand was made, and why the demand was conceded, was this, that it had been said by trade union officials and by hon. Friends that there was a difference in the administration of the two Funds as between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that some part of the Fund was being administered in a way which put an additional burden on Great Britain in respect thereof. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have something to say about that when he speaks, as he no doubt will later in the Debate, and I hope he will tell us what assurance he has that the administration of the Unemployment Fund in Northern Ireland will be precisely on the same lines and in all particulars the same as the administration of the Fund in Great Britain.
The hon. Gentleman who has submitted this Motion to the House did not add very much to the information with which we had been provided in the White Paper, but he certainly did dot the i's and cross the t's of that part of the Resolution which proposes to make Great Britain's contribution permanent. We are told that it is going to be permanent because the high percentage of unemployment is going to be permanent in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman repeated that over and over again. He also used a very carefully prepared
phrase with which he was evidently so pleased that he repeated it three or four times—a phrase about a temporary measure being no cure for a permanent disease. He spoke about the high percentage of unemployment in Northern Ireland, and we are told that that is to be permanent. Has the Tory party, then, no plan for reducing the percentage of unemployment, which the hon. Gentleman told us has risen to as high as 40 per cent., and which appears from the figures given in the White Paper to be permanent at something like 20 per cent? This Motion is an admission that the Tories have given up all hope of ever being able to reduce the present high percentage of unemployment, which is to remain for all time at something like 20 per cent.
If it is to be permanent, what becomes of the purpose of the condition in this White Paper that if the rate of unemployment is higher in Great Britain than in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland will begin to make a contribution to the fund? It is little less than an insult to make a condition of that sort, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows has no value. It is little less than an insult to the House of Commons to submit a proposal containing a condition like that. I remember in the last Debate that an Ulster Member, whom I am surprised not to see in his place this afternoon, told us that for something like 20 years the percentage of unemployment in Northern Ireland was far less than in Great Britain. Northern Ireland has a large amount of unemployment to-day, because of the depression of two of the staple industries, particularly shipbuilding. But the condition in Belfast is no worse than it has been and is in the shipbuilding towns on the North-east coast of England, and we have not given up all hope of a revival of industry in that part of England. Why, then, should it be given up in respect to Belfast? There is, then, the possibility—and I certainly entertain the hope—of better times coming in Belfast, and of the high percentage of unemployment, from which Northern Ireland now suffers and has been suffering for so long, being happily removed.
Since the temporary agreement was made three years ago, we have paid something like £2,500,000 from the Imperial Exchequer to the Northern Ire-
land Unemployment Relief Fund. There was a debt of something like £3,400,000 on the Ulster Unemployment Fund three years ago, and in the meantime nothing has been done to reduce it. It has been, to use the phrase of the hon. Gentleman, in suspense. We have—and let this point be particularly noted—been helping Ireland with £113,000 a year, and therefore we have been making a contribution to Ulster's unemployment payments anterior to the time when the agreement of 1926 was made, and we are continuing that to-day. We have not only been helping them by the payment of this £2,500,000 a year during the last three years, but we have been helping them, too, out of the money of the taxpayers of Great Britain on account of the deficiency which was created before 1926. We are to continue to do so.
The White Paper tells us that the Government of Ulster have undertaken to liquidate their liability; and they propose to wipe off the odd thousands, amounting to about £400,000, almost at once, and the £3,000,000 will be liquidated at the rate of £100,000 a year. As an excuse for the conditions which we are asked to accept, we are told that that will eventually relieve us of 113,000 a year. When? How long will it take to wipe off a debt of £3,000,000 at the rate of £100,000 a year? It will take 30 years. Therefore, the Government contemplate that this arrangement, which is to be made permanent under this agreement, is to continue for at least 30 years. That is what the Committee is asked to endorse. The purpose of our Amendment is that Ulster should be put in precisely the same position as Great Britain in regard to the debt upon the unemployment fund. We do not want to see the contribution for unemployment reduced in Ulster—far from it—but if a debt is good enough for Great Britain, a debt should be good enough for Ulster, and there is no reason to be advanced why Ulster should be put in a more favourable position than Great Britain, especially at the expense of Great Britain. There is one reason for it which is not a justification, and that is the reason which I gave at the commencement of my observations, when I said that this is only another instance where the loyalty of the Irish Unionists is bought by money contributed by the British taxpayer.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Although my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is in charge of this Debate I thought that I might at this moment briefly put before the Committee some of the larger issues which the Committee should have in mind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has made an uncommonly mild speech so far as its tone and vigour were concerned. He has nevertheless poured out in a feeble and wishy-washy stream the usual succession of violent epithets, charges of bad faith and conduct and of insults to the House of Commons—insinuations at every stage, all with plenty of venom served up cold, but with an obvious lack of any real feeling behind what he says. I venture to ask the Committee to look at this question in its broad and simple outlines. The whole principle of unemployment insurance is that it should be over the widest possible area, because now one trade is prospering and another is failing, now one part of the country is doing well, and another is a distressed area. When you have a sufficiently broad area, the misfortunes of one part of the country and of one particular industry are equated by the better conditions in another. That is the whole principle of unemployment insurance, and of all insurance. Hut Ulster has only two principal industries, linen and shipbuilding. Cut off by itself, the oscillations would be out of all proportion to the vital strength of this small unit of administration.

Miss WILKINSON: You should have thought of that when you divided Ireland.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But Ulster did not ask for a separate Government to be set up in the northern corner of Ireland. On the contrary, they wished, and their only demand was, to take the rough and the smooth with Great Britain. It was against their wish and in spite of their protests that this form of government was placed upon them. They consented reluctantly, but they consented loyally in order not to block the way to the self-government which was so strongly demanded by the southern part of Ireland. I have always considered that it is the interest as well as the duty of
the House of Commons to make a success of the Government in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman asked what assurance we had that the administration will he thrifty and identical with the administration here. In Ulster the administration of all public services is very frugal and stiff. No lush or lavish expenditure is there. Treasury officials who have examined the matter find that everything is sharply and clearly scrutinised in a way which hon. Gentlemen would perhaps regard as very disagreeable if it were done in detail in any Poor Law matter or unemployment insurance matter in this island. Ulster also pays a third of the cost of any excess in the unemployment bill in Ulster. By an equalisation arrangement Britain makes good the other two-thirds of the excess; hut this one-third of the excess cost of unemployment in Ulster weighs upon that small community, and upon its budget, with far greater force than ten times the amount would weigh upon our affairs.
Then the right hon. Gentleman asked: "Why should they be put in a different position in regard to the debt from what we are in this country?" They are put in exactly the same position. The whole arrangement has aimed at treating Ulster in such a way that she and her people are neither better nor worse off than the corresponding people on the other side of St. George's Channel, and I believe that object has been attained. The right hon. Gentleman asked further: "Why do you suggest that this excessive rate of unemployment will be permanent in Ulster? Are you not suggesting that unemployment is incurable, and that there will be no relief at all as years go on?" That is not the point at all. It is not that we have said that unemployment in Ulster at this high rate will be permanent. What we have said is that so small a unit of unemployment insurance as Ulster will continue to be permanently at a disadvantage compared to the wider unit which operates throughout Great Britain.
What I would like to know is, what other plan could we have adopted? We could have amalgamated the two funds. The right hon. Gentleman gave some countenance to that. The representatives
of Ulster were very anxious that that should be done. They certainly asked for no more than what the right hon. Gentleman rather incautiously has admitted he would be ready to concede. That, however, would involve all sorts of difficulties in administration, and might lead to very sharp divergences between the British Government and the Ulster Government on the question of payment of benefits in particular cases, and so forth. But, under the arrangement now proposed, we have the effectual safeguard that Ulster, if her fund costs more than ours because of the extra unemployment, is subjected to one-third of the excess, and, for a country so small, that one-third is the most heavy counter check you can have.
Now I venture to put one or two very simple points to the party opposite. Rightly or wrongly, the view we take is that these proposals put the working classes of Ulster in no better and in no worse position than their fellows across the Channel. Is Labour going to take the view that they ought to be put in a worse position? If so, in the first instance, it seems to me that it will be very short-sighted. If it were necessary to scrap or reduce the Unemployment Insurance Fund in Northern Ireland, if it were necessary to reduce the benefits or increase the contributions, or break up the fund altogether, we should undoubtedly get an influx of workpeople from Northern Ireland—I leave out of account the humanity of the matter—into those districts which are most distressed, on the Clyde or on the North-East Coast. Would that make things any better at the present time? To show how great is the burden on Northern Ireland, I would like to point out that one of our most distressed areas, the North-Eastern Division of England, with an insured population eight times as large as Northern Ireland, has a smaller percentage of unemployment at the present time. Would it really be worth our while to break up this Northern Ireland Insurance Fund, or by starving it in one stay or another, or by burdening that small Government with loans, piling up year after year, to promote a process which undoubtedly would lead to an influx of workers from there into the very industries and the very parts of our own country which at the present time are most distressed? I shall
be very much surprised if, on reflection, hon. Members opposite would like to identify themselves with such a course.
The other day I read some unfeeling paragraphs in the "Daily Herald":
Doubtless the Belfast Government, faced with the bankruptcy of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and unwilling to tap the pockets of its own people, would gladly have got over the difficulty by the simple expedient of increasing the workmen's contributions, or reducing their benefit or scrapping the fund altogether.
But why should we contemplate such matters? These people have just as hard a struggle to get their living as any others, and why should they be worse off than any other of His Majesty's subjects who are represented in this House? I am certain the Labour party will make a very great mistake if they allow the prejudice they feel against the Ulster Government to lead them into taking a wrong line on what is essentially a Labour matter. Just because the right hon. Member for Colne Valley has always had a dislike of the Ulstermen and been very much against them politically, why should the Labour party as a whole take up a position against that working-class population, strike at that working-class population and try to make out that it is in an invidious position compared with others of the same class? What is this we have heard of the solidarity of labour, "Workers of the world unite," and all that sort of thing? The right hon. Gentleman says: "Workers of the world unite—but, as far as these Ulster people are concerned, I have got a down upon them." Then the right hon. Gentleman asks: "Why do you bring this Measure forward when the existing Act does not expire till 1930?" Has not his speech been a very complete answer to that question? [Interruption.] We need not go "butting at" each other across the Floor of the House as to who is going to win the next General Election, that rests upon processes which are not yet determined, but this small community in Northern Ireland know that if by any chance—or any mischance—the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for settling this question, they would not get fair treatment. They know that he would be very eager to give them a kick, that he would be extremely glad to see them come a cropper, and that in his malice against the Ulster Government he would not be
restrained by any consideration for the working people in that area. I have had a great deal to do with these Irish matters and I feel no relish or enjoyment in that recollection. Each of the parties in this House has got its Irish pet and each has got its Irish bugbear, and people are more inclined to look with severity upon the interests of those they dislike than to ensure fair and impartial administration. As far as I am concerned, I claim to be impartial.
Only last week I was being scarified for taking a particular view upon an Irish matter—to which I still adhere—though I submit to the view of the House. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will have to wait no longer than tomorrow to hear me give an answer on the subject of Irish silver coinage affecting the Irish Free State which, I have not the slightest doubt, will bring upon me the reproaches of some of my hon. Friends who represent Ulster. So we are getting it from both sides. But I have been very earnestly desirous that in the settlement of all these Irish matters I should treat both the Governments of Northern Ireland and of Southern Ireland in such a manner as to make for the success of their affairs and to give them the power of continuous life; and further to enable them to deal with the very grievous problems which have been thrust upon them, and cordially to maintain steady contact with the central Government here in relations animated by goodwill. It is not in the least a desire to favour now this one and now that one which has animated me, but a desire that we should make a success of the problems of both these Irish Governments; and in this case, which is one of asking for no more than bare equality, and in which, as I am led to understand by the most critical examination of these proposals, they are getting no more than bare equality in a matter affecting the vital interests of 250,000 working people—in such a matter I do say that if ever there was an occasion on which we should be animated by a generous desire to help one of these Irish Governments, it is this, and the Resolution, proposed by my hon. Friend, constitutes an opportunity for the House of Commons to testify its opinion.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I find myself for once, probably for the first time in my experience in the House, not able to see
eye to eye with my friend and leader the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). If I were to judge this question on purely political grounds, I have no doubt I could put into my speech the feeling which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was absent from that of my distinguished leader, but I fail to take that view. I hate the politics of the people of the North of Ireland, I detest the step they took when they insisted on partition; I believe, from my knowledge of Ireland, that it is largely responsible for the position in which they are in at the present moment. I can see no prosperous future for them until they retrace that step. But the question I have to decide to-day, as far as I am concerned personally, is not one that affects the political character of Northern Ireland at all. I have to support, or refuse to support, the giving of necessary assistance to 250,000 working-class people. Although these people, as I have said, differ fundamentally with me on nearly every aspect of life and, to a very large extent, differ with the people I represent in this House, we have one thing in common. The poverty on the Clyde due to unemployment is approximately equal to the poverty in Northern Ireland. In the Division which I represent in this House we have at the present moment 21 per cent. of insured workers unemployed. I think that if an analysis of the figures were submitted to this Committee to-day, it would show that over the period of the past four years the standard of unemployment is worse in my constituency than in the area which we are now considering. I cannot follow the argument that, because the people in Northern Ireland are separated from us in regard to some things as a result of the Treaty, therefore I should take my vengeance on the working classes of that part of the country. The Ulster people are allied to us politically, and I see no reason in that for opposing the proposal which the Government are making to-day.
After all, this is a question of the Treaty, and if you want to alter the present state of things you must alter the terms of the Treaty. Does anyone want to open up the Irish political question if it can possibly be avoided? No party wishes to reopen the 50 years of Irish
history and the state of things which existed before the Treaty. I have no faith in the future of the Treaty, but want to let sleeping dogs lie. I am told that we have no control over the administration of the money that is proposed to be voted to-day. That is a question which we cannot settle to-day. It is a question for the Treaty. What is the alternative? If we do not grant this money to-day, who will suffer? Will it be the rich men in Ulster to whom reference has been made? It is quite true that it should be, and the rich men in England should also suffer, but I object to my people on the Clyde suffering in consequence. If I were dealing with 250,000 Clyde workers, would I accept it as a valid argument that certain people had money and that before we gave the necessary assistance to the Clyde, we should see that the rich people in the Clyde district parted with their money? I would not agree to that course. I insist upon supporting the people of Ireland, and I am willing to leave it to the House to determine the terms on which the workers on the Clyde should be assisted later on. I am willing to vote this money and argue these matters later. I am contending for the view that we should do unto others as we would have them do to ourselves. I would not let the Clyde people starve, and I do not wish to starve the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. BATEY: Charity should begin at home.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes, charity should begin at home, but it should not end there. A good deal has been made of the fact that these people in Northern Ireland have their own insurance scheme, and ought to tap their own resources. I think if the Clyde people were left to tap their own resources they would find themselves in difficulties in a very short time. Northern Ireland has no Birmingham, London, or Southern England or other comparatively prosperous centres of industry to contribute to her distressed areas. As a matter of fact, Northern Ireland is itself one distressed area. If we do not pass this financial proposal it must lead to a reduction of the amount of the unemployment benefit in Northern Ireland. What effect will that have on the Clyde? It will have the effect which
has very properly been suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If you make the people of Northern Ireland live on a reduced unemployment benefit, then the Tories in this House will insist upon the people living on the Clyde receiving less unemployment benefit, and we shall be met with the argument that a working man living on the Clyde requires no more than a working man living in Belfast.
Such a policy is bound to have another effect. It will drive the workers in Belfast in increasing numbers to compete with the people working on the Clyde. For these reasons, I am going to refuse to oppose the proposal which has been submitted by the Government to-day. Think of the position on these benches to-day. In the next Vote we shall be asked to increase the pensions of the Dominion Governors from £1,300 to £2,000 a year. If the House of Commons can afford to do that for our Dominion Governors, surely we should see to it that there shall not be unnecessary starvation in Northern Ireland. I submit that if the House of Commons were asked to-day to vote this sum to relieve some poverty-stricken people in a foreign country the money would be granted unanimously. I protest against the idea that because in politics and many other things I disagree and shall always disagree with the people of Northern Ireland, I should refuse justice to 250,000 of the class of people that I represent. From the first day I entered the Socialist movement I have been making an appeal with the object of emancipating all the workers and asking them to unite with England, Scotland, Southern Ireland and other parts of Europe. I am not going to turn round now and say that I am going to make it a condition of giving assistance to the working classes that every one of them must accept my politics and my views.
I refuse to do that. I am here to serve the workers unconditionally irrespective of class, politics, or creed. The fact that they are workers is sufficient for me. Ours is a rich nation which can well afford to find the money. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer could work up as much enthusiasm for the people on the Clyde as he has clone for the people in Northern Ireland. If he did that, I should greatly appreciate
his speeches. I suspect, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has probably acted more with political motives than I am acting this afternoon. Whatever may be the right hon. Gentleman's motive and the views of my party, the fact that you have 250,000 workers in Northern Ireland needing help, and the fact that if you do not give them some assistance they will be landed into deeper poverty is sufficient for me. For these reasons, I refuse to oppose the proposal of the Government.

Mr. GARDNER: I have been particularly interested in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his defence of the claims of the people of Northern Ireland. While the right hon. Gentleman was making his declaration, I called to mind an occasion when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the courage to go to Belfast and address 20,000 people on a football ground. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman told the people of Ulster what he thought about them. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is anxious to redeem his reputation, which suffered somewhat last week, but it appears to me from the attitude he has taken up that that is his object. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood on this question. I happen to be an Ulster man myself, and I am a native of Belfast. I am opposed to the proposal of the Government solely on the ground that I do not think the circumstances justify it. The first thing to which I want to draw attention is the fact that there are now only four Ulster Members present. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate only four Ulster Members have been present in this Chamber during the discussion.

Mr. KELLY: There are five present.

Mr. GARDNER: That is an indication that the Ulster Members know in advance what the Government are going to give them, and that is in keeping with the ordinary policy of cadging in this country for Northern Ireland. No doubt the Ulster Members are quite satisfied with the result. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an appeal for the poor working class population of Northern Ireland. I am aware that if this proposal is not granted some of my school-mates will be placed in the position of having to pay increased taxation in Northern Ireland, or accepting diminished unem-
ployment benefit. I am certainly not anxious to hurt the people from whom I sprung. The announcement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to provide more money for the people of Northern Ireland struck me as being something very contrary to what we are finding in this country to-day. Yesterday afternoon the President of the Board of Education announced that the Miners Fund under the Lord Mayor's appeal had distributed £440,000, and we are asked in the White Paper to approve an estimate of £465,000 to Northern Ireland in perpetuity. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who introduced this proposal, told us that in the North Eastern area there are eight times the number of unemployed that there are in Northern Ireland. I suggest that one of the reasons for this Vote is not so much a question of diminishing the poverty in Northern Ireland, but is simply a question of keeping the Ulster Government on its feet.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said that on this question he was more concerned about giving first and inquiring afterwards. I suggest to him that this Vote is going to put back for five years the chance of the Labour party in Ulster forming a Labour Government in that particular area. If this Vote does not go through, either the rich men in Ulster will have to pay increased taxation or the insured workers in Ulster will have to accept diminished unemployment benefit. In that case the Ulster Government would suffer at the next election. Already the present Government in Ulster have gerrymandered the constituencies in order to secure a permanent majority, and they are now getting the assistance of the British Government to help them. As soon as the Ulster Government are obliged to face their own responsibilities, then they will make some real effort to face the circumstances in Northern Ireland. On this point I do not take the pessimistic view put forward by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. SAMUEL: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not misrepresent me. I said that the restricted size of the insured population in Northern Ireland and the employment of a large part of
that population in two trades, are, we think, a permanent feature in the situation. I would not like it to be placed on record that the view which the hon. Gentleman has expressed has been accepted by me.

Mr. GARDNER: The fact remains that we have established a Government in Ulster. The Government knew the size of the area when they started the scheme, and they ought to take over their proper share of the responsibilities. The Chancellor also said that his Department had carefully scrutinised the administration in Northern Ireland, and found that there was no waste. I do not know, Mr. Hope, what your point of view may be, though I know that you would not express it, having regard to your duties, but, if the Committee would understand that the gentleman who holds the office corresponding to yours in the Northern Ireland Parliament gets £1,500 a year—

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot deal with the administration of the funds of Northern Ireland.

Mr. GARDNER: The Chancellor said that there was no maladministration. I suggest that administration involves the whole Government, and in the Northern Ireland Parliament the Deputy-Speaker for six weeks' work gets £1,500 a year—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can go into that. The point is whether the Departments are carrying on their administration with proper economy. This is an act of the Northern Ireland Parliament, and we cannot deal with it.

Mr. GARDNER: I am sorry if I have transgressed the Rules, but, at any rate, I have expressed my point of view. I will give a distinct analogy. The North-East Coast has eight times the amount of poverty, if I may use the term, that Northern Ireland has, but it certainly has not a Government like that of Northern Ireland, and on that ground alone I think it is exceedingly fortunate. I do suggest that to ask the British House of Commons to agree to a permanent charge of approximately £500,000 a year for a population of 250,000, and to utilise the name of a Royal personage on huge posters throughout the length and breadth of England and Wales
appealing for funds to diminish the amount of poverty in certain areas which have a population of somewhere near 1,000,000, is a contrast which will not bear examination. I hope that the Committee will reject this proposal, and that we shall settle down to some reality as regards this position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon went out of his way to make reference to the technique of the Insurance Fund and the basis of its foundation. If what he said is true, and no one would doubt the wisdom of his remarks, it ought to apply more fully to the position in Great Britain. If it is a good thing to use British taxes to diminish poverty in Northern Ireland, I suggest that it is a very good thing to use British taxes to diminish poverty in the Welsh and Northern coalfields, and in the other parts of Great Britain which are now suffering so much.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I had not intended to intervene in this discussion, but there are one or two points in what was said by the last speaker that. I cannot quite accept. I believe it is true to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have brought forward this recommendation to-day for extra money for Northern Ireland had it not been for the fact that Northern Ireland gives him and his Government political allegiance. The consideration of the Government to-day is not that workers in Northern Ireland are in need; it is not that poor people are requiring unemployment benefit. There is one consideration, and one only, and that is the consideration depending on political power—how the Government can at the next election muster no sufficient political power to command the situation after that event. As a consequence, the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day is not spurred on by the desires and needs of the community, but by purely political motives.
I accept that, but that does not alter the character of this Vote. I am sorry that I cannot accept the argument of the last speaker. He asks us to vote against this proposal, and thus put the hands of the clock of progress in Northern Ireland back for five years; and he says, and I agree, that if that be done either of two things must happen—either there must be increased taxation of the rich or decreased benefits for the poor. The
money must be found; if it be not found, it cannot be paid out. The hon. Member says that the Northern Ireland Government will be faced with that position, and, being faced with that position, they will be defeated at the polls. In other words, a reduction of benefits will bring about the return of a Labour Government in Northern Ireland at the expense of making the conditions of the poor worse than they have been before.
To that doctrine I cannot subscribe. It is possible that at the next election my majority might be greatly increased if certain proposals that my colleagues were able to get into the Local Government (Scotland) Bill had been rejected by the Government, but I want those concessions, because they will make the conditions of the people better. Consequently, even if my majority be not quite so great, I would rather that that should be so if I can see something done for the common people. What is the alternative? It is said by one or two of my colleagues, and I agree, that charity should begin at home. It may be that we ought to start our charity among the people at home, and with that sentiment I cordially agree. There are Members of the House from whom I differ in many respects, but my bitterest critic cannot deny that I have applied that kind of reasoning to the Division that I represent, though possibly no one has done it in greater isolation. But what is the position? I will give an instance. I remember the deplorable starvation that occurred in Vienna, and the terrible want and misery and poverty that were suffered there, and I remember that colleagues of mine, men of great outlook and wonderful hearts, got assistance from this country in many diverse ways for those people. While charity begins at home, none of us has ever denied that we might to assist, if we can, people in other parts of the world.
To-day we are asked to vote, roughly speaking, £500,000. How is the money to be raised if we vote against granting it? A Tory Government is in power in Northern Ireland. If we do not grant this money, the Tory Government there will riot go to their friends; the history of Toryism proves that. Where, then, will they go? They will immediately turn round and say, "We have been refused the money by
the Labour people in the British Parliament," and then what will happen will be that benefits will have to be reduced. The Labour people in Northern Ireland will be faced with that position. I find myself in the same position which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) took up when this matter was discussed on a previous occasion, and he refused to oppose it. I accepted his point of view, and took up the same position. The position which I now find is that the Northern Ireland Insurance Fund is in need; it is in debt.
It is said that we ought to charge the same rate of interest as is charged to British workers. I do not, however, want British workers to be charged with any interest at all, but why should I extend the burden to the other people? I want pensions for the moulders, but do not oppose pensions for postmen because they are not granted for the moulders. I want interest-free money for Durham, but why should I oppose interest-free money for the shipbuilders of Belfast because I cannot get it for Durham? This money ought to be granted to every part of the country on the same terms as in Northern Ireland, and I want to see it so granted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) pioneered in Scotland the proposal for interest-free money, and it was, I think, accepted by the Labour movement in Scotland. Why should I now object to its being extended to workers in Northern Ireland? It is said that the miners are starving, and that they should get money, but, if this Vote were defeated, would that give an extra penny-piece to a single miner in Britain? Does the starvation of miners mean that someone else must be starved in Northern Ireland as well? The miners do not want that. When I look at this Vote I see only one issue. It may be that the Government's reason for bringing it forward is purely one of political expediency, but it would be a bad day's work for the Labour party to be even partially associated with refusing money for purposes which in the main are benevolent and good in character. Personally, I hope that we shall not try to get power by making the woes of the workers worse. I would rather that we should get into power, not on the poverty of
the people, but on the knowledge of the people and on the improvement of the condition of the masses.

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the hon. Member if I correctly understood him to say that he did not oppose the previous Vote?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I may be wrong, but I am almost certain that I did not vote on the last occasion.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I find, from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 22nd February, 1926, col. 154, that when on that occasion the Committee divided on an Amendment to the Resolution, the names of the hon. member and of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) were included among those voting in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It may be that I am wrong. If so, I am not the first to be wrong, and I will admit it frankly. On that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton stated, if I may be allowed a word of personal explanation, that we did not want to see Northern Ireland made poorer. I may have voted on that occasion, as I generally vote with unquestioning loyalty with my party, but on this occasion, having examined the problem, I certainly cannot, accept their view. If I made a mistake last time, I candidly admit it, and I hope that the next man who makes a mistake will admit it as frankly as I have.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his usual craft, has endeavoured to get the attention of the House, or part of the House, away from the central point we are dealing with. Unemployment in Ireland, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury very well says, will continue permanently at a high figure. Unemployment in the linen industry, to take his example, unless something that he can hardly anticipate himself will happen in connection with the artificial silk industry, will remain at a very high figure.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I said no such thing. I have already repeated what I said, and it is this: The restricted size of the insured population of Northern Ireland and the employment of a large part of this population in two trades, linen and shipbuilding, is, we think, a permanent feature of the situation.

Mr. HUDSON: What the hon. Gentleman said—the correction made very little difference—was that the situation in Ireland was such that, at any rate so far as this trade was concerned, there would be insufficient in it to meet the needs of the situation and, in order to deal with that, there is to be made permanent this extra grant. I ask myself what is happening now, and what will happen in the next few years, with these unemployed workers in the linen and shipbuilding trades who have been out of work for a year or two years or possibly more. Exactly what is happening to our own workers in this country under the unemployment legislation. When they come to an end of their stamps, they are thrown out of unemployment benefit, and in Ireland, where Poor Law relief is even worse than it is in this country—and in all conscience it is bad enough here—those workers in Belfast, in spite of what my hon. Friends have been saying, will he compelled ultimately to come over to Glasgow or to other parts of Great Britain. That is happening anyhow, and all that is being proposed is a grant of money to the capitalist Government of Northern Ireland which, by successful political pressure, has wrung this money out of a Government constituted like itself. I cannot for a moment deceive myself that any help is to come to the Irish workers from this proposal. If I had done so, and I am sure if the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to think the Trish workers would gain anything out of this proposal, we could have approached the situation in a far different way. It is the landlords and capitalists of Northern Ireland particularly the landlords, to whom ultimately through the law of rent we are making this grant.

The CHAIRMAN: This digression into economics is hardly relevant.

Mr. HUDSON: With very great respect, I think it would be well if the House of Commons, when it doles out large funds in the way it is doing, would consider a little more closely the economic fundamental of the matter. When you pay out money, pretendedly that it may go into the pockets of the workers, and you have provided no guarantee for that, the law of rent, as Ricardo explained it—

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is conscious that that argument would lead us on all occasions into every kind of sphere rather than the one before the Committee.

Mr. HUDSON: It woulid lead to a consideration of the question of rent, and, as I believe this question of rent is lying there all the time—

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee concerns unemployment, benefit. If the hon. Member introduces rent, other Members might introduce Protection.

Mr. HUDSON: I must bow to your Ruling, Sir, but you have prevented me from using, in my judgment, the most powerful argument that could be used in order to clear up a misconception in the minds of my hon. Friends from the Clyde area. At any rate, I am not deceived as to what we are to-day involved in. I go further, and say the Labour party are prepared to provide for the workers of Ireland as we insist now in providing for the workers of England. The workers of England are provided for, very defectively, by a fund, and, under the law, if that fund becomes short, what is short is to be regarded as a debt. Until we are willing by new insurance legislation to remove the debt from the shoulders of the English workers, I submit that there is no case to remove it from the shoulders of a few in order that those who are now responsible for the government of Northern Ireland may get out of financial difficulties for which they themselves are responsible.
I return to the main charge that was made by my right hon. Friend. What we are doing is making a gift to a body of men who, if they did not receive this gift, would have to provide other legislation to meet the loss of the workers in Northern Ireland for which they are responsible. They manage to deceive the workers of Northern Ireland. They keep alive the old controversies with the interested motive of saving their pockets, and they have come here to-day to save their pockets while they keep religious controversy alive and keep the workers of Ireland blind to the real situation. The reason we are acting in this way—and no one knows it better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was so
crafty in putting his point—is that those hon. Members opposite who represent Northern Ireland may continue with their political dominance over that area, and what is really happening is that the workers of Ireland are being left for a longer period the prey of their political and economic methods. Let us face the real issue. If the workers are to be helped, they all ought to be helped together. We ought not to be taking these special steps in order to help this or that particular section of Government. We ought to provide, as I have often heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) claim, with the lot of the workers, and all the workers, in our minds, and if we were doing that at this moment, if we were asking for a real change in insurance legislation by which we could shift the debt from the insurance fund all round, no one would more gladly support it than we would. Indeed, we have contended for this change all along, and, because we know that this Government has insistently opposed us in that demand, we realise that they are playing a trick and are doing nothing whatever to help the workers of Northern Ireland.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I rise, in the first instance, to deal with a constitutional point with regard to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before dealing with that I desire to express regret at the way he treats the Committee on these occasions. He fires off an oration with great fervour and, though it is really a matter that primarily concerns himself, he leaves the House after a very little while and does not hear the arguments put forward on the other side.

Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend is engaged at this moment in very important public business.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is not good enough. I have heard that before and I have found out afterwards sometimes what the important business was, and it has not always been as important as we are led to suppose. It may be that on this occasion it is important but, in any case, the Government had the choice of days. They need not have put this Measure down for this day. When it is being considered it is the
business of the Chancellor a the Exchequer to be here. The right hon. Gentleman said he was quite prepared to agree that the Government were bringing forward this proposal long before it was necessary in order that it might not come under the purview of my right hon. Friend, and he said he was perfectly justified in that, because he and the Ulster Members knew in advance that my right hon. Friend would net be as considerate to them as he would he. That raises a very grave constitutional issue. It is not my right hon. Friend and the Members of my party who are being flouted by this procedure. It is the democracy of this country. The Chancellor is saying in effect, "It may be that next May the democracy will decide against my party and, therefore, we are going to tie the hands of the democracy in advance. We are going to make an agreement, and get the House of Commons to accept it in perpetuity, which will prevent the democracy of the country dealing as it thinks fit with this question." I should not have supposed that the Conservative party, which professes to be a constitutional party, would have lent themselves to such a proceeding, but we know quite well that, when it really comes to the interests of the men for whom they stand, the constitution to which they profess to give their adherence, is a scrap of paper.
Leaving the constitutional issue and coming to the merits of the question, my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends behind me have dealt with this proposal and the Amendment as though we were proposing to withhold from our fellow workers in Northern Ireland money to which they are entitled. That is not our point of view at all. Our point of view is that the method the Government has selected for doing this thing is a wrong one, and for that reason we are opposing it and making a different proposal. If there was no alternative between the method the Government propose and reducing the benefits of the workers in Northern Ireland, I certainly would vote for the Government proposal, but the situation is that the Government proposal is a preposterous one. They are proposing to part in perpetuity with any control over the money of this country, to make an agreement with Northern Ireland that does not terminate this year
or next year but runs on indefinitely—and when I say indefinitely I would remind the Committee that it is not subject to the usual method of this House to reverse it because it is in the form of an agreement, and it would be treated as a breach of faith to reverse it. So we are putting our hands to something which it would be very difficult for this House in future years to go back upon. What is this proposal? It is to hand over to Northern Ireland a sum of money which, at the present time is over half a million a year and may fluctuate but is likely to remain in the neighbourhood of this sum for many years to come. The proposal is to hand it over to the Ulster Parliament and to lose control of the money. I see no reason at all why we should not limit the matter in time and why we should not limit it by calling it a loan. Then, if the Ulster Parliament administer the money well and we think their needs are as great in the future, we can give them the money for a further year and so on. I absolutely refuse to be a party to handing over carte blanche money of this kind and definitely to part with all control over it.
Let me come to another aspect of this question. In this White Paper we have, in page 3, this statement:
The Agreement is reciprocal and if at any time unemployment in Northern Ireland became less heavy than in Great Britain, the Exchequer of Northern Ireland would be liable to contribute to any payments made by the British Exchequer to the British Unemployment Fund to bring it into parity on the basis of insured populations.
I say that that statement is so misleading as to be practically untrue. I am very sorry to see that the Government have used a White Paper which should give us information and should enable this House to be in possession of the real facts to gloss over what is really rather a disreputable transaction. Everybody knows who has studied this matter really carefully that while this agreement in form is bilateral and confers benefits on both parties to the agreement, in actual practical effect it is unilateral. The bilateral part of it is just so much dust to be thrown into the eyes of this Committee. In case anybody should venture to dispute that I will quote very briefly some of the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when
the original agreement was before the House of Commons in 1926. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to get away with it at that time and I showed him then that he was entirely incorrect. The reference will be found in column 2166, in volume 192 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It was on the 9th March, 1926. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says:
I admit, quite frankly, that it is unlikely, for the sake of the small proportionate sum that is likely to be received … that we should derange our general finance by making an equalisation cash payment into the Fund.
He goes on a little later on to say:
Therefore, I frankly admit that it is in form more than in fact that any contribution from Northern Ireland could be expected during the four and a-half years of the life of the Agreement on this Fund."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1926; cols. 2166 and 2167, Vol. 192.]
Though he adds those words "during the four and a-half years of the life of the Agreement on this Fund" the statement that he made is just as true when this extends for a long time. The fact is, of course, that our method of dealing with the Fund in this country is by loan, and as long as we go on dealing with our own Fund by loan we cannot, under this agreement, get any money whatever out of the Northern Ireland Exchequer for the purpose of financing our own fund. Therefore, I think my statement is justified. This White Paper, of course, is technically correct, but only technically correct. It gives the impression, and is intended, I venture to suggest, to convey the impression to Members of this House that the agreement is bi-lateral in effect as well as in form. It is unworthy of our White Papers not to give us an explanation of the practical effect as well as of the theoretical effect of what we are doing.
I have no intention of taking up any more time of the Committee but I would just like to restate my points. In the first place, I think that the method of hurrying on this decison long before it is necessary—admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be done in order to prevent the next Government from handling it—is unconstitutional. It offends against the principle that the democracy of this country shall be entitled to deal with the situation which it finds at the moment. In the second place I claim that it is the form of this
agreement against which I in common with my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends here protest. If the money is required in order to secure the benefits of the working people of Northern Ireland, we are perfectly willing that it should be found, but we object to parting with control indefinitely of the money which we are asked to give. We think that it ought to be given year by year, and we ought to have at least as much control over it as over the money which we give towards our own requirements and the requirements of our own people. Lastly, I protest against the White Papers of the Government being used to mislead the Members of this House.

Mr. REID: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but I think that anything which I have to say can be said in a very few words. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, opened the Debate in a way which reminded me of an historical character who, I believe, attacked the obstacles which confronted him with vinegar. I think that that was his method of procedure, but we have had a more friendly form of debate since he spoke. There are one or two things which I should like to say with regard to the points which are before us. We have had before us a concrete problem. It would not be relevant, and I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee to show how it has grown up, but we have here a problem in regard to a fund which has been established in an area which is really insufficient to carry the burdens of its own Insurance Fund.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley both on the occasion of the last debate and on the present occasion has admitted that it was a mistake ever to sever that fund from the British fund. My friends from Northern Ireland would have much preferred that the funds had been re-united, but we have been told that the administrative difficulties were so great that that could not be done. Consequently, we are given this other expedient. I wish to point out that various speakers on the opposite side of the Committee have said that if the Opposition Amendment is accepted the same method will be adopted in dealing with the Northern Ireland Fund as
is adopted in dealing with the fund in Great Britain. That is a fallacy; it is not so. In Great Britain, when you deal with a deficit by loan, you have the fund spread over a large number of trades. The effect of the proposal of the Opposition would be to take two trades like cotton and iron and to segregate the workers in those industries and make a loan to those trades only, and then in future to charge them with the resultant debit that would be looked upon as unreasonable and impossible, but it is the equivalent of the proposal of the Opposition with regard to Northern Ireland. They assert that it would be parity of treatment; but it would not be parity of treatment. It is true that the Ulster Fund is treated in an entirely different way from the English Fund.

Mr. KELLY: Does the hon. Member suggest that there are only two trades in Northern Ireland, that of linen and that of shipbuilding?

Mr. REID: Those are the two staple trades. There is one other point with which I wish to deal. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that if this money is not provided one of two things must happen, either the Parliament of Northern Ireland must levy a heavy tax on their people or reduce the benefits. When they talk of the Government of Northern Ireland levying heavy taxation they seem to forget the scheme of finance provided under the Government of Ireland Act which set up the Government of Northern Ireland. All the productive taxes are reserved for this House of Commons. The Government of Northern Ireland cannot levy Income Tax, or Super-tax, or Excise or Customs Duties. They can levy Death Duties, but, as a matter of fact, the Death Duties payable on estates situate in England of persons who die domiciled in Northern Ireland go to the British Government. To talk of the Parliament of Northern Ireland levying taxation is simply futile. It shows a complete ignorance of the finances of the whole scheme under the Act. Under the Act, taxes are levied by this House. Certain proportions are paid back to Northern Ireland, but the Government of Northern Ireland, have not, within their own hands the power of levying taxes. I do not think that the proposal of the Government has been met by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the
friendly way in which it might have been met, but I have no wish to enter into the controversy or to raise any controversial point. I have only tried to point out, first of all, that the reason why the Government of Northern Ireland cannot impose taxation, as has been proposed, is due to the Government of Ireland Act. The other point I want to emphasise is that the Amendment which has been moved by the Opposition does not introduce parity of treatment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I stand by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in this matter. I should like, in the first place, to emphasis the statement made by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) that the House feels aggrieved that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. It is a disgrace that on an important matter like this the Chancellor of the Exchequer should absent himself, particularly in view of what happened in regard to Ireland last week. Immediately he had made his speech, he left the House. Why did he leave the House to-day, seeing that he did not leave it last week? It is because this question deals with the working classes. A quarter of a million of workers in Northern Ireland are involved and, of course, that does not matter. He has served his political ends. He has paid the price, or he thinks he has, and now he leaves the field.
I want to make my position perfectly clear. I represent a working class constituency which is very much identified with the workers in Northern Ireland. The workers in Northern Ireland have a good deal to do with the part of the country which I represent. Both Orangemen and Roman Catholics are involved. One would think, from the speeches we hear, that only Orangemen are involved. The Roman Catholics and the Orangemen who are concerned in this Vote are members of the working class. It matters not what their religion may be, I stand by the working class. I would stand by them if they were Hottentots, as long as they were of the working class. The hon. Member for West Leicester said that there must be no money given until we get control of Northern Ireland. We cannot get control. It would be neces-
sary to change the Treaty before we could get control. The Treaty is responsible for the present position. We cannot get control until we alter the Treaty, and that would mean that my class in Northern Ireland would have to starve until we got control.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My hon. Friend has misunderstood what I said. I did not demand control of Northern Ireland. I suggested that we should pay out this money a year at a time so that we could keep control of the money, and that we should not lose control by making an agreement in perpetuity.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have not misunderstood my hon. Friend and comrade. We cannot do what he suggests. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now arrived. I thank him for coming, in response to my request. The hon. Member for West Leicester said that he wanted to keep control from year to year. That may be, but it is the Treaty that is responsible for the position which confronts us to-day, and we do not want to put back the hands of the clock and have trouble in Ireland such as we had in the past. We want to keep things moving as smoothly as possible, and it is to our advantage as members of the Labour party that we should look after our class in Northern Ireland. I am satisfied as a member of the Independent Labour party, as a member of the national executive committee of the Independent Labour party for 10 years, and as one in constant contact with the Labour movement in Ireland, that the Labour movement in Ireland would not stand for what the Labour party is doing here to-day. That is one of the reasons why I support the right hon. Member for Shettleston. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) said that there must be no assistance to workers in sections.

Mr. J. HUDSON: That was not what I said. What I claimed was that we ought to put forward a demand, that all the workers should be dealt with; that every worker, both here and in Ireland, would get a better chance through the withdrawal of the debt on the Fund, and that the workers should get the benefit.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is the same thing. When my hon. Friend reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that he was not in favour of the workers in sections getting assistance. That means that I, as an engineer, must not assist Joe Batey, the miner. It means that the industries that are prosperous at the moment have not to assist industries that are not prosperous. I am opposed to interest. I have always been opposed to interest. I am opposed to the interest that is being paid on the £34,000,000 debt on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Not only am I opposed to interest being paid on that debt, hut I would abolish the debt. The very idea of paying interest at 5 per cent. on the Unemployment Fund debt is a crime, in my opinion. I would say in respect of the Unemployment Fund: "Here is a debt of £34,000,000. We will forgive it." This country and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to forgive it. Why cannot the Chancellor of the Exchequer take his courage in both hands? He poses as being a brave and courageous man, and I believe he is a courageous man in a way. Here is an opportunity to say in respect of the Unemployment Fund: "We will cancel the debt." There is no reason why we should say that until the debt is removed we are going to starve the workers in Belfast. That is what it means.
What do we find in Northern Ireland? I know Northern Ireland fairly well. The whole of Northern Ireland, and not merely a part of it, is a stricken area at the moment. Poverty is rampant. There is no part of it that can go on tap in order to assist another part. Reference has been made to the Clyde area, but the Clyde area, with all its poverty, Scotland, with all its poverty, is not to be compared with Northern Ireland, because in Scotland we have various industries that are doing fairly well, There are different sources that we can tap. What sources can they tap in Northern Ireland? [HON. MEMBERS: "The landlords."] Absolutely nothing. The landlords can do nothing if the workers are not working. If the workers are not working, there is nothing in the country. It is the workers who produce everything, and not the landlords. In Northern Ireland the shipbuilding industry is in wrack and ruin. The
textile industry is stricken. These are the two main industries of Northern Ireland, upon which it has to depend. They cannot tap Birmingham or London for assistance. There is no Birmingham, no London, no Liverpool in Northern Ireland that can be tapped. There is no place to which they can go for assistance in that country. The whole of the Northern Province of Ireland is destitute.
Are we to go into the Lobby to oppose what I believe is a just claim? Because it may be said that the Government are doing it for political kudos, are we to fall into the trap and oppose a measure for the amelioration of the poverty that exists in Northern Ireland if we did, who would suffer most? It would be the working classes. Who is in power in Northern Ireland? Not the workers, but the Tories, the same type of men who hold control in this House. What do the Tories do here? What do the Churchills, the Baldwins and the rest of them do, with all their sanctimonious pretence and hypocrisy? They cut down the workers on every occasion where there is anything to be cut down. Where economies have to be effected, they are effected, in every case at the expense of the working class. That would happen in the case of Northern Ireland if we opposed this Vote. There are engineers and shipbuilders in Northern Ireland who would suffer most, as a result. I am going to stand for them, and I will not go into the Lobby to oppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this occasion.

Mr. BATEY: I am sorry to differ from my hon. Friends on these benches, and I hope the House will not think that there is a split in our party. I hold very strong views on this Northern Ireland agreement. It raises three issues: (1) the permanent half-yearly grant of £500,000, which may increase to £1,000,000 a year, (2) the yearly payment of the excess debt that was in existence at the time of the 1926 agreement, and (3) the indecent hurry of the Government in making this new agreement, although the present agreement does not end until 1930. The Labour party never took up a position which I more heartily support than they have done upon this question. My three colleagues have missed the point. What we suggest in the Amendment is that instead of paying a half-
yearly grant which may reach the huge figure of £1,000,000 a year, the Treasury should be put in the position of lending money to the Northern Ireland Unemployment Fund, just as they lend money to the English Unemployment Fund.
I fail to understand why my hon. Friends should want Northern Ireland to be put into a different position from the English, the Scottish or the Welsh people. If loans are sufficient for the English fund, then surely they cannot be wrong for the Irish fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) said that the working classes would suffer under our Amendment. How could the working classes suffer if the Amendment were carried and the Treasury lent money to the Unemployment Fund in Northern Ireland? The working classes could not suffer. They would receive benefit just as the working classes in this country, in Scotland and Wales, receive benefit, because the Treasury lends money to keep the Unemployment Fund good. Why is the Northern Ireland Unemployment Fund in this position? I submit that it is because the Treasury in Northern Ireland has followed the bad example of the Treasury in this country. The Unemployment Fund in Northern Ireland is carried out on the same lines as the Unemployment Fund in England; the contributions have to be the same and the benefits have to be the same. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer passed the Economy Act he reduced the Treasury contribution to the English Unemployment Fund, and the Treasury in Northern Ireland followed suit. They reduced the Treasury contribution from 6¾d. per person employed per week to 6d. If the Treasury of Northern Ireland would go back to the old scale of contribution they would not have to come to this country for this money.
The Treasury in England have saved £14,500,000 by the reduction in the Treasury contribution since that Act was passed and I suggest that the remedy is to go back to the old scale of contribution. It is not necessary to reduce unemployment benefit in Northern Ireland. It is not necessary to raise money from the rich people in Northern Ireland. All that is necessary is that the Treasury in Northern Ireland should pay on the basis of 1926. I believe the
Financial Secretary to the Treasury would tell us that the reduction in the Treasury contribution from 6¾d. to 6d., amounts to about the same sum that we have been paying to Northern Ireland. For 1928, the Government's contribution to Northern Ireland is £550,000, which is just about the same amount the Treasury of Northern Ireland has saved by the reduction from 6¾d. to 6d. When the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) was speaking, I interjected an observation that charity should begin at home. We are not in the position to hand out money to Northern Ireland. If we have any money to spare we should think of our people at home. We have to face the 19th April next, when there is a possibility of thousands upon thousands of men in this country being cut off the Unemployment Fund simply in order to save money to the Treasury. Instead of the Treasury handing out money to Northern Ireland they should, if they had any to spare, spend it at home rather than elsewhere.
I take strong objection to the proposed new agreement, especially in regard to the proposal in connection with the yearly payment and the wiping out of the debt in Northern Ireland. When the original agreement was made in 1926, there was a debt of £8,000,000 on the Unemployment Fund in this country and a debt of £3,000,000 on the Unemployment Fund in Northern Ireland. It is now proposed that all that is to be debited against the Northern Ireland fund is £191,000, and all the remainder of the £3,000,000 to be cleared off as between this country and Northern Ireland. I contend that Northern Ireland is asking far too much, especially when we in this country have to face a debt of £34,000,000 on the Unemployment Fund. The Government seem to show an indecent anxiety to make this new agreement; the old agreement does not finish until 1930. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made no bones about it, but in a rather cool way said that they proposed to make this agreement now because they were afraid of what a Labour Government might do if they came into power. If that is the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government we are justified in saying that they are in an indecent hurry to make this new agreement in order that they may help their friends in Ireland before they
leave office. What we complain about, not only in regard to this country, but in regard to the loyalists in Southern Ireland and the people in Northern Ireland, is that they are doing all they can to see that their friends are helped out of the public purse of this country before they leave office.
I have as much sympathy with the working men in Ireland as with the working men in Durham. I would help them just as much, but I do not believe that this affects the working men in Northern Ireland in the slightest. If it were not for the fact that we have none but Conservative Members in this House from Northern Ireland, we should not he discussing this proposal. And hon. Members from Northern Ireland cannot ask the Labour party to support them. The Unemployment Fund in this country is worse to-day because of the votes they have given in this House. They voted for the miners eight hours day, which had added no less than 100,000 men to the Unemployment Fund. They should not ask for any sympathy or help from us. They do not, as a matter of fact, they look to their own friends in this country, and they are not disappointed. The present Government are determined that before they go out of office they will shovel as much of the public money as they can into the pockets of their friends.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: It seems to me that this question has been debated by hon. Members on the Labour benches from two points of view, and as they were not agreed amongst themselves it was interesting to listen to the various arguments put forward. A great deal of ignorance exists on this subject. Many of the arguments which have been adduced by hon. Members opposite are based on ignorance. One point which the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) emphasised strongly was this: Why did the Government of Northern Ireland follow the example of the Treasury in this country and reduce the Treasury grant? The logical conclusion of such an argument is that the Treasury of Northern Ireland should have complete control of its own finances and taxation, and in that case should be able to give an increased grant. As we have not a Treasury or separate taxation in
Northern Ireland that is quite impossible. You have all the taxation in this country; you collect all the taxes.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Why did you not take it?

Sir W. ALLEN: Many blunders were committed at the time the Treaty was entered into, and I am afraid that Northern Ireland cannot be blamed. However, I do not think I should be in order in going into that aspect of the question. The difficulty has been explained over and over again, but I want to impress upon the Committee the position of the industries on which the working classes in Northern Ireland are dependent. Take my own town, with its 12,000 inhabitants, where I suppose the linen industry had its origin. There is no other business in that town; and the calamity that has overtaken the linen industry is a matter of history. I do not think hon. Members quite realise what happens in a town like that when all the factories, which are linen factories, close down, and when all the merchants—and they are all linen merchants—close down. It is impossible for the contributions in that particular town any longer to support the Unemployment Fund. Take similar other towns like Portadown, Bainbridge and Ballymena, which are entirely dependent upon the linen industry. All the towns in Northern Ireland, with the exception of Belfast and Londonderry, are most seriously affected when the linen industry fails. We have had a most calamitous time in that industry. There are some successful concerns in Northern Ireland, but they have been successful because they have had the banks behind them. I want hon. Members to bear in mind the serious position which exists in Northern Ireland because of the faith re of the two main industries.
I am very sorry that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) should have made use of words which I am sure, when he thinks them over, he will regret. Certainly I did not expect to hear those views in this Debate. We are trying to get away in Ireland, both North and South, from the old feeling. It was with great regret that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that the loyalty of the loyalists of Ireland is measured by the amount of money that they receive.
That statement was largely cheered by his fellow members. The right hon. Gentleman must have a very short memory. I would ask him what money the loyalists received, apart from any other part of Ireland, or apart from any other part of the United Kingdom, before the Treaty? Is the loyalty of the loyalists of Ireland only a modern thing? Has it existed only since the Treaty was granted and since the Northern Ireland Government was placed in authority? Is it a thing only of the last few years? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, if he knows the history of the loyalists of Ireland, that their loyalty goes back longer than a few years. He ought to know perfectly well that his argument is a fallacious one.
I would be out of order if I gave it a stronger name, but I think it was most undignified on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, who occupies the position that he does on the Front Opposition Bench, to descend to such a statement. Personally I regret it very much, and I doubt whether his statement represents the opinion of the majority of his own followers. It would almost seem as if the Government of Northern Ireland was putting this money into its own pocket, instead of trying to assist the Government here and to assist the working classes there over this problem of unemployment. I cannot imagine that the Labour party in this House will persist in opposition to this proposal. After all, their great boast is that they want to help the unemployed working man. This is a determined effort on the part of the Government to assist the unemployed. Northern Ireland is a small unit, dependent on a few industries. I have the greatest hope that when it comes to a Division the party opposite will reconsider their position and allow this proposal to go through. I know that from the working man's standpoint in Northern Ireland, the Amendment will be considered as a very serious blow from those who are supposed to represent Labour in this House. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to pass the Resolution with unanimity. Other expressions have been made use of with regard to the Government that is in power in Northern Ireland—what hon. Members have called the Tory Government. May I ask hon. Members who use that expression who it was that placed that
Government in power? Surely it was the working men of Northern Ireland?

Mr. BATEY: It was religion that did it.

Sir W. ALLEN: Surely we have a majority of working men and women in Northern Ireland who are quite capable of choosing for themselves what Government they will have? It is not a slur on the Government, but a slur on the choice of the people belonging to the working classes, to refer in this way to the Government of Northern Ireland. I am hoping that before the Debate closes the Leader of the Opposition will realise the responsibility of not looking upon this thing in a small and political sense, but from the broader point of view which he is quite capable of taking in conditions such as these. I hope that he will get rid of all the party idea and think only of the interests of the working classes. I can assure him that the working classes in Northern Ireland are looking to him and to his party for support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in carrying this Resolution. I am satisfied that the Northern Ireland Parliament has exercised the greatest economy and care in the administration of this and other schemes that have been entrusted to them. There is no finer set of men in charge of Government Departments and the distribution of funds than those that are to be found in Northern Ireland. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to assist them and to assist the working classes by passing this Resolution, for then they will be doing one of the best things in their lives.

Miss WILKINSON: One of the advantages of a Debate such as this is that it allows us to see the Members for Northern Ireland. When those Members do appear they always make such sound Home Rule speeches. It is always interesting to hear how much they desire to have their country all to themselves and to have their own Government—all the things that we told them they should have before 1914. But I would like, first of all, to call attention to the actual terms of the Labour party's Amendment, which both a large number of my friends behind me and the speakers opposite have forgotten. The Amendment is simply to insert the words
Subject to the modification that provision be made for the repayment of any sums paid.
Anyone who had heard this Debate would assume that we were moving a negative, that we were saying that this sum should not be paid to Ireland. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer had finished quoting Karl Marx and waving the Red Flag generally he roused the blood of my Clydeside colleagues behind me. The fact is that all that the Labour party suggest by the Amendment is that provision be made for the repayment of any sum lent. The Amendment does not even state that repayment shall be made within a certain time. We are not suggesting any onerous terms.

Sir W. ALLEN: We are not tax collectors in Northern Ireland. The taxation is all collected from this country.

Miss WILKINSON: It is a question of having a separate fund. When we make arrangements for Treasury loans to the unemployment fund in this country provision is made for the workers and the employers to repay the loans. Northern Ireland has its own fund, and there is no reason why it should have a different set of provisions from those applicable to workers and employers in this country. We have had the Minister of Labour saying in this House frequently that the high rates of contributions in this country had to be charged both to workmen and employers in order to make provision for the repayment of Treasury loans. Therefore, we have every justification for saying that by this Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer more favourable terms are being given to Northern Ireland than are given to employers and workers in this country. It is being done because the situation in Northern Ireland is this Government's creating, and this Government is paying money to its friends in Northern Ireland for political purposes.
Let me again make the position clear. We are not objecting, and never have objected, to a Treasury loan for keeping the Insurance Fund solvent. What we are saying is that the same provisions should he made for Northern Ireland as are made for this country. We are faced with an undesirable position which is this Government's own making. Here you have an artificially created small unit in Northern Ireland. Everyone knows that it is impossible to maintain it. Then why is it maintained? Because of
the pride of the party opposite, who will not admit their failure, and the failure of all their speeches at the time. They are maintaining this impossible small unit because of their friends in Ulster and because of the things that they said at the time. Then we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling us how economical they have been. Anyone who talks about the economy of the Government of Northern Ireland is positively laughable. They are maintaining out of an area not much larger than an English county and one big town—Belfast—an expensive corporation and an expensive national Government. The Government there is not a Government and a Parliament; it is merely a telephone exchange.

Sir W. ALLEN: Your friends voted for it.

Miss WILKINSON: Because of the attitude that the party opposite took up, because the party opposite created an impossible situation. No one can say that anyone on these benches wanted a divided Ireland. The party opposite created the situation by the impossible speeches that were made—the speeches of the present Home Secretary when he was not quite as moderate as he tries to be in these days. When the party opposite are faced with the working out of the inevitable, then they come along and talk about this little country and the economies. A large sum of money is being spent in Belfast to make a Parliament House for a Parliament which is, as I say, merely a telephone exchange which receives orders from this country and carries them out. [Interruption.] Hon. Members know that as things are it is the laws which are made in this country which have to be carried out. They are merely transmitted to Northern Ireland and you are allowed to play about with them, and you call that government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): I am afraid it is quite obvious from the interruptions with which the hon. Member is meeting that she is transgressing beyond the matter which is before the Committee.

Miss WILKINSON: I have no desire to be out of order, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come here and quote Karl Marx, it is difficult to avoid going into all these matters. Coming back to the question of repayment, how-
ever, we feel a little bitterly about this matter. When it is a question of giving money on loan to British workers, however poor they are and however desperate their situation, the Minister of Health demands that those sums must be repayable. In my own constituency there are thousands of workers who have been unemployed for more than five years and every article of furniture in their homes is ticketed for repayment of money on loan. But when it is a matter of giving loans, not to desperately poor people, or people in desperate straits, when it is a matter of giving loans to their own friends in Northern Ireland, then no question of repayment arises—not even a question of control. We even have the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with the question of control so as to make sure that this shall be an armour-plated guarantee to the Government's friends in Northern Ireland.
We appreciate the testimonial which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given to this party. We appreciate his fears. He is one of the most far-sighted of the occupants of the Front Bench opposite and we are glad to note that, having made a careful reading of the political situation, he recognises that the present Leader of the Opposition will be sitting on the Front Bench opposite after June next. But in making statements such as he has made this evening, all that the right hon. Gentleman does is to expose the political nature of this deal. We have not introduced politics into this matter. We make it perfectly clear by our Amendment that it is not to the payment of this money to the Insurance Fund that we object. We are far more anxious than the Chancellor of the Exchequer—when he has finished making speeches with his tongue in his cheek—about the condition of the workers of Northern Ireland. We are far more anxious about the workers than the right hon. Gentleman is ever likely to be. Does he imagine that the engineers of Northern Ireland are not going to see through a pretence of that kind?
We know the short shrift which the workers are likely to get from the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues. We saw that only too well in the Insurance Act already passed. But it is not our intention to prevent this loan being made to Northern Ireland. Hon. Members are
merely sending out a smoke screen to conceal the real situation, if they say that we object to this payment being made to the workers of Northern Ireland. I am sorry that my hon. Friends from the Clyde, with all their bitter experience, have been led away by statements that we object to this payment to the workers. On the contrary, all we are saying is that this matter should be put on the same level in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain, and, just as the British loans have to be repaid, so a loan to the Northern Ireland Fund ought to be repaid. In these financial matters, as the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, the way out is not to make a gift of this political kind to the Government of Northern Ireland. The way out is to have a re-examination of the whole position.

Mr. KELLY: It is interesting to hear the representatives from Northern Ire land expressing themselves as they have done this evening. One would imagine that they had given great attention to the condition of the unemployed workers there and had taken a great interest in those workers. But their appeal to us that we should not oppose this Motion, is one which might well have been made to their own friends, at other times when the workers of Northern Ireland required some consideration. To suggest that this loan is going to deal with the problem of poverty and unemployment in Northern Ireland is absurd. It is not only a question of the shipbuilding, and the linen trade, because it is misleading this Committee to say that there are but the shipbuilding and linen trades operating in Northern Ireland.

Sir W. ALLEN: We made no such statement. There are other small industries. Those are the principal industries.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I said that one-third of the insured population was confined to the two trades of linen and shipbuilding. I understood the hon. Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) to say that it was one-half.

Sir W. ALLEN: Over one-half!

Mr. KELLY: We are told that there are 252,000 insured people in Northern Ireland. Is it suggested that half of that number are in the shipbuilding and linen trade? If so, I think hon. Members had
better get up their figures again. Those of us who are concerned directly with those trades in Northern Ireland are not prepared to accept such figures, and the statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is much nearer the mark, if it also is not an over-statement of the facts. But the desire to have this fund augmented by a loan from this country, comes very strangely from the Members for Northern Ireland. They say they have no money to put into the Unemployment Insurance Fund of Northern Ireland. That sounds very strange coming from people who, a short time ago, did something which even this Parliament refused to do for the employers of this country, when they financed, to the extent of 50 per cent., an inquiry under the safeguarding procedure. They could find money for that purpose, but they cannot find money to help in relieving unemployment in Northern Ireland.
The Amendment, as has been pointed out by the last speaker, is not a refusal of the loan. It is not a refusal to help our fellows in Northern Ireland. Time and time again hon. Members opposite have rubbed it into us that this is an

insurance scheme and not a scheme for assisting the unemployed. If hon. Members opposite think it is an insurance scheme, surely they are prepared to deal with it on those lines and will not object to the Amendment. They would not object to the Amendment if they really believed what they have stated in the House of Commons and the country, over and over again, about this being purely an insurance scheme. I do not believe, and never have believed, in a contributory insurance scheme. But here are people who talk about easing the burdens on industry and who are prepared to impose this particular burden on industry in this particular case. I hope the Committee and the country will appreciate the statements made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on this point and will recognise that they are simply out to get hold of this money and are not so much concerned about unemployment. They talk about insurance schemes at one stage, but when it does not suit their purpose to do so they go off on another tack altogether.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided Ayes, 110: Noes, 215.

Division No. 237.]
AYES.
[6.58 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold


Ammon, Charles George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major G.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry


Barnes, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barr, J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Batey, Joseph
Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bellamy, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hayday, Arthur
Purcell, A. A.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bromfield, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Scurr, John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Shield, G. W.


Clarke, A. B.
Lansbury, George
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lowth, T.
Snell, Harry


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dennison, R
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R. (Aberavon)
Stamford, T. W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mackinder, W.
Strauss, E. A.


England, Colonel A.
MacLaren, Andrew
Sutton, J. E.


Forrest, W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Taylor, R. A.


Gardner, J. P.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Windsor, Walter
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson.


Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Ainsworth, Lieut-Col. Charles
Gates, Percy
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Greaves-Lord, sir Walter
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Oakley, T.


Apsley, Lord
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Atkinson, C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hamilton, Sir George
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Balniel, Lord
Hammersley, S. S.
Perring, Sir William George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harland, A.
Peto, G, (Somerset, Frome)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hartington, Marquess of
Power, Sir John Cecil


Berry, Sir George
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bethel, A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Preston, William


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, Henry C.
Pringle, J. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Radford, E. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Henderson, Lieut.-Cot. Sir Vivian
Raine, Sir Walter


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsden, E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Briggs, J. Harold
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hilton, Cecil
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Remer, J. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ropner, Major L.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ross, R. D.


Buchan, John
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sandon, Lord


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Bassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Savery, S. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W.)


Chapman, Sir S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Shepperson, E. W.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ.,Belfst.)


Christie, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Skelton, A. N.


Clarry, Reginald George
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Clayton, G. C.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Looker, Herbert William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cope, Major Sir William
Lougher, Lewis
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Couper, J. B.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lumley, L. R.
Templeton, W. P.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cothcart)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
MacIntyre, Ian
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Watts, Sir Thomas


Ellis, R. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mellar, R. J.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Womersley, W. J.


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ford, Sir P. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Moore, Sir Newton J.



Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words:
subject to a provision limiting its operation to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one.
When the original Debate took place in 1926, we moved from this side of the Committee that the operation of the agreement should be limited. The agreement entered into in 1925–26 was to expire in March, 1930. That would have given a period of operation of the agreement of about 4½ years. When that agreement was under discussion, we took the view that it was very unwise that Parliament should give away complete control of its money in such a way for the whole period, and that we ought to have an opportunity from year to year to revise the position. To-night we are faced with a much wider proposition from the Government. We are asked to consent to the making permanent of the terms of the agreement of 1925–26. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Coke Valley (Mr. Snowden) that will involve at any rate the continuance of the contributions from this country to the Ulster Unemployment Insurance Fund for 30 years.
When you consider the conditions in which this extended bargain, if I may use the term, was made, I think it is all the more important that the House of Commons should be very jealous of its own position and should limit the operation of the agreement very strictly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in this Debate this afternoon, admitted that the main reason for entering into this new extended agreement was that they were afraid of what the attitude might be if the Government lost their political power at the next election. Therefore, admittedly, you have a bargain being made more or less behind the backs of the electors. You had an agreement which was to operate from the end of 1925 to March, 1930. There would have been ample opportunity for the whole matter to be debated, and negotiated with the Ulster authorities, and for whatever arrangements which were necessary to be made before March, 1930. Yet we have a bargain which at last savours of some political corruption entered into before the General Election takes place in order that the political friends of the Government may be made, from their own point of view, perfectly safe. We have had no answer to-day. I should like to know from the Ulster Members whether they support the point of view put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
that the Ulster authorities have entered into the bargain with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because they are afraid of what the verdict of the electorate in Great Britain and Northern Ireland may be next June.

Mr. REID: May I point out that the Ulster authorities entered into this arrangement as being the persons responsible for the conduct of the Insurance Fund. It is obvious that no one can run an insurance fund on grants from year to year. It cannot be done. It is obvious that there are sound business reasons for entering into this agreement now before the other expires. It is quite ridiculous to suggest that there is any political arriere pensee about this thing. I can speak for myself, for I am here interested in my own constituents, and nobody else, and there is no thought of what is going to happen at the election.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Obviously, the Ulster authorities claim, according to the hon. Member, that they come into the bargain with very clean hands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is much more frank than that. He said: "We dare not trust a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer if by any chance this General Election puts him into office." I think it is important that we should have an Amendment which will limit the operation of the agreement to 31st March, 1931, and I will tell you why. The hon. Member says it is useless for us to go on having doles from year to year. He knows that the Ulster Government have had considerable doles with regard to unemployment in the last five or six years. There was a grant for the Special Constabulary, but it was used to bolster up the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

Mr. REID: No. That statement is not admitted by anybody else.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The provision was quite clear both in 1925 and 1926, and if the hon. Member looks up the debates in those years he will see that we never had a very satisfactory answer. Certainly they had very considerable doles in that direction. All that we are asking now is that you should put matters upon a permanent basis, but that that permanent basis should be of exactly the same kind of footing as in the case
of the Unemployment Insurance Fund for Great Britain. Instead of that, you are asking us to stabilise a form of contributions to unemployment insurance in Northern Ireland for 30 years which we are not permitted to get from the Treasury for our own Unemployment Insurance Fund. We say, therefore, while we do not want to go over the whole ground of debate on the previous Amendment, that, seeing that we are to have a General Election, and in view of the necessity for this House of Commons having a much closer control over its grants than that, we ought to limit the operation of the agreement to March, 1931. In the meantime, the electorate will express its view, and we shall have an opportunity for revising the position and bringing the whole thing into proper relationship with the general relief of unemployment.

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not intend to keep the Committee very long on this matter. The line we take is this. I must by the way remind the hon. Gentleman opposite that a part of this agreement, as stated in the White Paper, is that the Northern Ireland Government shall extinguish the excess debt of £3,424,000 of the Unemployment Fund. We thus get the Government of Northern Ireland to deal with this debt and it is part of the present arrangement for the 1926 agreement to be permanent; they on their part will gradually extinguish this debt of the Fund. I do not think I could say anything beyond what I said originally in my opening speech that could make the Government's attitude clearer. I cannot therefore say more than this, that we regard as the dominating factor in this whole problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland the fact that the size of the insured population is very restricted and employment is mainly in two trades, to the extent of one-third of the whole of the insured employment. Subject to the reservation that the unforeseen may happen, we think that that dominating feature will be a permanent feature and that it is futile for us to imagine that we can deal with what we fear will be the permanent feature of the situation by a temporary measure. I cannot express myself more clearly.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Which is the permanent feature, the small size of the insured population or the high rate of unemployment?

Mr. SAMUEL: The restricted area of the insured population. The basic principle of insurance, as one knows, whether it be fire, life, accident, or unemployment insurance, is to spread risks over a very large area so as to make favourable sections counterbalance unfavourable sections.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in this country the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour have a very easy way of settling that? They wipe the people off the insurance roll altogether as not being insurable propositions.

Mr. SAMUEL: That is a different point and one into which I cannot enter now. The object of our proposal now is to put the Northern Ireland Fund into precisely the same position as—no better and no worse than—the British position. I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.

Mr. MACKINDER: I cannot understand the hon. Member's position. He says he does not want to make the North of Ireland any better or any worse than England. Some of us have had a very extensive connection with working men who have to receive unemployment benefit, and one of the things that our people in the country greatly resent is the special treatment that is being meted out to the North of Ireland in this connection. Hon. Members opposite cannot get away from the fact that in the North of Ireland they get their debt completely cleared, without owing the Government anything.

Mr. SAMUEL: I want to make that position clear, so that hon. Members opposite may not be under any misapprehension. The Northern Ireland Fund is only to be relieved of debts proportionately larger than the British Fund debt. There is no intention of putting the Northern Ireland Fund in a better position than the British Fund. Any assumption to the contrary is quite a mistake on the part of hon. Members opposite.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite clear that this is beyond the scope of the
Amendment before the Committee. The discussion must be confined strictly to the question whether there should be a limit to the operation of this scheme.

Mr. MACKINDER: Surely I am entitled to show arguments on the policy that the hon. Member opposite has put up to us and to show that we should not go beyond the 31st March, 1931.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Quite so, but I think the hon. Member will not misunderstand what I said. He must confine his remarks to the question whether or not this Resolution should be subject to a provision limiting its operation to the 31st March, 1931, and he cannot deal with the general question of the method of treating unemployment.

Mr. MACKINDER: According to your ruling, Sir, all that I can do is to repeat, or perhaps make a poem out of, the words:
subject to the modification that provision be made for the repayment of any sums paid.
It appears to me that the only argument I can use is to reiterate those words until the Committee weary of them.

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member has read the wrong Amendment.

Mr. MACKINDER: Well, I meant the following Amendment. I have listened to practically the whole of this Debate, and I am under no misconception as to which is the Amendment before the Committee. The Deputy-Chairman objects to my using any argument except as to why the matter should be limited to the year 1931. If I cannot produce arguments as to the manner in which the Fund is being used and as to the difference in treatment between the North of Ireland Fund and the British Fund, it appears to me that there is nothing to be done but formally to support the Amendment. I am trying to show that there is a difference of treatment. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said he did not want the North of Ireland Fund to be better or worse than the British Fund, and I am trying to show that he does want the North of Ireland Fund to be better. In trying to explain that, I have to refer to the history of things that have been done to ease the North of Ireland Fund.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member should have
made his speech before this Amendment was moved.

Mr. KELLY: The Amendment at least gives this House an opportunity of deciding, in 1931, as to what shall operate after that time. It appears from the statements of hon. and right hon. Members opposite that we are going to continue in this country with the stupid method of unemployment insurance which now operates. If that is the best that this country can find, it shows a want of realisation of the problem that confronts us. I submit that we ought not to tie up a future House of Commons by stating that this grant must continue beyond the date mentioned in our Amendment. Even the claims made by the North of Ireland representatives would be well met if that date were inserted, and I hope they are not going to burden this country with these grants for all those 30 years that have been mentioned so often during this discussion. We were told by one of the Members from Belfast that they cannot go on from year to year with doles. It shows the mind of the North of Ireland representatives when they refer to an employment insurance as doles, but we are not asking that we should go on from year to year with these grants to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. We are asking that, subject to the insertion of the date mentioned in our Amendment, the matter should go forward in this way, and I think we are justified in moving the Amendment.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in opening the discussion to-day, told us that despite the awful picture which he drew of the industry of Belfast at the moment, and of how had it would be in the future, there was a prospect that more than the present factory that is engaged on the manufacture of artificial silk in Belfast may be established. Yet, despite the fact that there may be prosperous industries in Belfast, that the shipbuilding trade of Harland and Wolff and of Workman, Clark and Co may again be prosperous, we are asked to agree to this grant continuing, even though Belfast industrially may be prosperous enough not to require a grant from this country. In fairness, justice, and decency to this country, I ask that the Amendment should be accepted, so that there may be some chance of reconsidering the whole position.

Mr. SAMUEL: I hope that no one will accuse me of lack of consideration for hon. Members, but we have had a very interesting Debate, and I should like to make a personal appeal to them to allow us to get this Motion now.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The arguments put forward from the other side, particularly from hon. Members representing Ulster, simply amount to this when they are boiled down, that Ulster is a distressed area, that she is in such a position that she has, in her one big town, a great number of unemployed and a great amount of poverty, and that, owing to the narrow geographical limits of Ulster, it is impossible to run the business of State insurance there successfully. I submit that there is a perfect analogy in regard to the question of the administration of the Poor Law in distressed areas in this country. You get a distressed area in South Wales or the North of England—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting far beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. MONTAGUE: With all due respect, may I submit that I am using merely an analogy in order to put point

to my argument? The time does not give me the opportunity of making the point I wished to make, but I submit, in the interests of Debate in this House, that the fair use of analogy is perfectly legitimate and is not out of order.

Mr. W. BENNETT: I am certain that there is not a single Member on this side who wishes to support, in any shape or form, a proposal that would jeopardise the unemployment benefit of any person, either in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, and I resent very much the suggestions that have been made that the opposition, in moving this Amendment, wish to do that. What we do object to is this proposal to acquire merit for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other side at the expense of future Chancellors of the Exchequer belonging perhaps to the Labour party.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell) rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 118.

Division No. 238.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Forrest, W.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Chapman, Sir S.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gates, Percy


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Christie, J. A.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Clarry, Reginald George
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Apsley, Lora
Clayton, G. C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Ashley, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Atholl, Duchess of
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Atkinson, C.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grotrian, H. Brent


Balniel, Lord
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cope, Major Sir William
Hamilton, Sir George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Couper, J. B.
Hammersley, S. S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Harland, A.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Berry, Sir George
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hartington, Marquess of


Bethel, A.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Briggs, J. Harold
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Briscoe, Richard George
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Ellis, R. G.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
England, Colonel A.
Hilton, Cecil


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bullock, Captain M.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Campbell, E. T.
Fielden, E. B.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Carver, Major W. H.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Cassels, J. D.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A


Hume, Sir G. H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sandon, Lord


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hurd, Percy A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Savery, S. S.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)


Iveagh, Countess of
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Shepperson, E. W.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Skelton, A. N.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'd.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Nuttall, Ellis
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Oakley, T.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Lamb, J. Q.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Loder, J. de V.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Looker, Herbert William
Perring, Sir William George
Templeton, W. P.


Lougher, Lewis
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lumley, L. R.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wallace, Captain D. E.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Power, Sir John Cecil
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Preston, William
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


McLean, Major A.
Pringle, J. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Radford, E. A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Macquisten, F. A.
Raine, Sir Walter
Wayland, Sir William A.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ramsden, E.
Wells, S. R.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Margesson, Captain D.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Meller, R. J.
Ropner, Major L.
Womersley, W. J.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ross, R. D.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.



Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Major The Marquess of Titchfield




and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bellamy, A.
Hollins, A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scurr, John


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Bondfield, Margaret
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Ht. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shield, G. W.


Briant, Frank
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Clarke, A. B.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Strauss, E. A


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Gardner, J. P.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major G.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

Question put accordingly, "That those words he there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 228.

Commander EYRES MONSELL rose in his place, and claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."

Resolved,
That it is expedient to confirm an Agreement, dated the 14th day of December, 1928, and made between the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland for continuing the Agreement confirmed by the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act, 1926; and to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sum certified by the Joint Exchequer Board to be payablo after the 31st day of March, 1930, from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom under the last-mentioned Agreement as so continued.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL (By Order).

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [19th February], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House is of opinion that proposals which vitally affect the problem of London Traffic and the tramway and traffic powers and obligations of the London County Council, the City Corporation, the Middle-sex County Council, and the local authorities of West Ham, East Ham, Croydon, Leyton, Walthamstow, Ilford, and the 28 Metropolitan boroughs, raise matters of public policy which should not be dealt with by Private Bill."—[Mr. Scurr.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. AMMON: When the sand ran down in the hour glass a week ago, I had nearly finished my speech, and I have only one or two other points to put before the House. First, I venture to say that the Government come out of this business with very little credit. They are evading their obligations and their responsibility by bringing this question before the House in a private Bill, and the Minister of Transport himself appears as little other than the agent for the traffic combine. When we consider how this subject, which concerns so many millions of working
people in the County of London is being treated, we must compare it with the attitude both of the Government and of the Members on the Government side of the House last Tuesday. Then the benches opposite were crowded in the interests of a comparatively small group of relatively well-to-do people who were seeking to blackmail the British Government, and we noted how readily the Government succumbed to that sort of pressure and are meeting the demands of the blackmailers.

Mr. HANNON: I hope the hon. Member will not use that expression of other hon. Members.

Mr. AMMON: I can find no other expression which adequately describes the attack made on the Government last week, resulting in the Prime Minister throwing over his own Ministers. When I compare that case with the treatment of this subject, which is vital to millions of London people, I feel London will know how to assess the action of the Government as and when the opportunity presents itself. However, I am chiefly concerned with meeting the case which the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) put up last week, more especially his remarks regarding the alleged loss on the tramway undertakings. He is reported to have said at a meeting of the Wandsworth Borough Council that the London County Council tramways, in addition to having remitted to them the payment of £300,000 a year for three years, were also making a loss of somewhere about £500,000. He repeated that statement in somewhat different terms during the debate last week. It is well that we should hear the official answer which has been given to that statement, and I will quote the statement made by the Tory vice-chairman of the Highways Committee of the London County Council. He said:
With the approval of His Majesty's Treasury, the accounts for the three years ended 31st March, 1927, made no provision for repayment of that part of capital expenditure incurred up to 31st March, 1924, which is subject to the 25 years' term for redemption. This temporary suspension relieves the accounts for the three years of a large annual charge, roughly computed at £300,000; but the obligation had to be resumed in 1927–28, in which year there was a deficiency of £226,211. After meeting all debt charges in the current year the deficiency is estimated at £43,804.
That is an entirely different story from what the hon. Member stated at the Wandsworth Borough Council and in this House last week. We will examine the figures in a little greater detail. The hon. Member said last week:
From March, 1922, onwards we have to tell the steady grim story of financial loss, and our opinion is that that loss was entirely due to the omnibus competition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1929; col. 1060, Vol. 225.]
Let us see whether that loss is a loss. I venture to say that there is hardly any business in this great business centre which, if it were judged on the ordinary terms applied to all other businesses, would be so thriving arid so prosperous as that of the London County Council tramway service; and I will go further, and say that having regard to the attempts continually made in this House, and in the London County Council itself, to sabotage the service, no business would show so great a resilience as the London County Council tramways service has done during the period through which it has just passed. According to the report of the Highways Committee of the Council, the estimated surplus for the year 1928–29 amounts to £650,000. From that we have to deduct the interest on the outstanding capital, that is to say, the interest paid on the money loaned, and after that we get a net profit of £377,015.

Sir HENRY JACKSON: I would like to ask the hon. Member kindly to deal with the last actual figures, and not with the estimates for the coming year.

Mr. AMMON: If the hon. Member will allow me, will develop my case in my own way. We will discuss this matter as all matters of finance are discussed here, on Estimates put before the House by the responsible person in charge. The intervention of the hon. Member proves what I was trying to show. The hon. Member puts up a case of his own and tries to prove something from it which will riot stand examination in the light of the true facts. Under the special conditions of municipal finance, there has to be paid off the capital cost of the system in the year ended 31st March, 1929, the sum of £480,544. When the profit of £377,015 is taken from this, there is a deficit of £103,529 to be provided out of the rates. It is nonsense to describe this as a loss. When the trans-
action is completed, the London County Council have got assets worth £480,544 for a payment of £103,529. That is how you would estimate it in other businesses. Why do hon. Members, for their special purposes, want to estimate it differently here? Knowing Lord Ashfield to be a keen business man, one can only feel astonishment at his eagerness to get hold of a losing business, and this talk of the London County Council tramways being subsidised out of the rates invites us either to use terms which are not within the bounds of Parliamentary language, and which I would by no means attribute to the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth, but merely to suggest, in the words of Dr. Johnson, "Ignorance, sir, ignorance."
8.0 p.m.
What are the facts? From 1897 to 1928 the total contribution from the rates to the trams has been £1,226,894. The council has paid off, provided for out of the tramways service, no less a sum than £8,752,035. In other words, there has been a net gain to the citizens of London of £7,325,141. Can the hon. Member deny that? That money has been paid into the sinking fund. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who are criticising it do not get their money back in their own businesses, and, when bad times come, they are lucky if the capital is not cut down very considerably, and then they find they are worth very much less than they thought they were. The estimate of the Highways Committee of the London County Council for the year 1929–30 shows a surplus of £770,460, with a net surplus of £17,485; that is, after all the commitments, the sinking fund payments and everything else, have been met, it is anticipated there will be a net surplus of over £17,000. This has been accomplished under a handicap such as no other business has to meet. I want to deal with another point. The tramways contribute very large sums to the rates. They have to maintain their track and 18 inches on each side of the track in good condition. I think everybody will admit, having regard to modern traffic, that the tramway track itself is worn very little by the tramways. In this way, it is estimated that expenditure to the extent of £233,600 a year is saved to the ratepayers. Furthermore, the tramway
tracks are rated, and the actual payments for the financial year amount to no less than £30,690. There is, in addition, an annual charge of £30,000 placed upon the tramways in respect of contributions to road improvements which have considerably benefited all forms of road traffic. All these are charges over and above that which any other system of transport has to bear.
It is a fact that if the tramways were scrapped, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), the London ratepayers would have to pay another £1,000,000 a year, apart from the risk of increased fares. Between the years 1914 and 1926 the amount contributed by the tramways to the Metropolitan boroughs towards the upkeep of the permanent way was no less than £1,027,056. For the same period, the amount of debt charge contributed on account of street widenings was £424,998. The estimated saving to the road authorities in consequence of the obligation of the London County Council to maintain the paving along the tramway route for the same period was no less than £2,683,500. What other form of transport has to carry such charges? It the normal scale of omnibus fares on ail the tramway routes were applied to the council's system, the increased cost to the users of the tramways is estimated at £1,000,000 per annum. There is one other point worthy of notice. It has already been pointed out that where there is keen competition between the tramways and the omnibuses the omnibuses follow the example of the tramways and give cheap midday fares, but where there is no such competition the omnibuses do not adopt cheap fares. I think that is a clear indication of what would happen if the Combine had its way.
I will try and put in a few words what I think constitutes the whole gravamen of the attack now being made on this particular form of transport. Within another 20 years, the whole of the capital of the tramway system will have been repaid. Nobody imagines that the people behind the combine, and Lord Ashfield in particular, are very cheerful in view of this prospect, because they must realise that when that comes about the tramways will be in a favourable position and will be able to give much cheaper transport to the people of London. These people
know that if they can wipe out the tramways they will be able to carry on very much better, because in 20 years' time it will be difficult for the combine to compete successfully with the tramways. It is under these circumstances that this plot has been arranged with the connivance and help of the Minister of Transport. First of all, we had the case of the cables, and now the Government are proposing to lay down conditions in regard to the tramways, regardless of the well-being of the service and of the community itself. If we judge the business of the tramways on the same lines as hon. Members judge their own businesses, it is clear that it is all nonsense to talk about the tramways being a losing concern. The tramways are a very profitable business indeed, quite apart from the service which they give to the community. We want the tramways to be judged by the enormous contributions which they make to the rates, by the amount they put aside for sinking fund, and the great and unparalleled service which they give to the citizens of London.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) commenced his remarks by making a wholly unworthy attack upon a certain number of citizens of this Empire whom he characterised as blackmailers, but who in reality were people who claimed that some reasonable compensation should be made to them for the perils they suffered when the protection of the British Empire was withdrawn from them. People who make criticisms of that kind must not complain if words which are a little strong are used about their conduct. I do not propose in any way to minimise what I consider is the position which has been taken up by some hon. Members opposite. Before I proceed to the actual details of the Bill, may I say, first of all, that I intervene purely as a London Member who has no interest in any one of the various companies concerned, and who has no interest except that of serving his own constituents who are and will be vitally affected by these Bills.
It is essential that every London Member should take the greatest care to watch matters which affect the travelling public of London, and particularly those whose constituencies are situated, as mine is, on the extremity of London, and con-
sequently are greatly affected by anything which is likely to minimise or depreciate the provision which is made for traffic in and out of London. It is from that point of view that I approach these Bills. The hon. Member for North Camberwell stated that when you are dealing with matters which affect the electorate as a whole, it is certainly well to be accurate, and it is well to remember that the electorate have memories like other people.
I was a little interested in the rather intimate and personal confessions which were made by the Member for South Battersea (Mr. W. Bennett) when he seconded the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr). The hon. Member for South Battersea pointed out in his speech that he had made this question of the trams one of the leading questions in the recent by-election at Battersea, and he went on to say:
A great many people of London and of Battersea are in deadly fear that the result of this transaction, it this private Bill be passed, will be an increase in the fares. The principle involved is important. The Bill proposes to hand over to a private business—the combine—the right to make a tax on the citizens.
The hon. Member went on to say that:
the removal of the competition between the tramways and the omnibuses will inevitably result in a rise in fares.
The hon. Member further stated:
If it be possible to get rid of the London trains by a private Bill why should it not be possible to get rid of the Post Office or to hand Over the mines to a commercial combine by a private Bill?
There is one other statement made by the hon. Member for South Battersea relating to the increase of fares. He said:
There is not the slightest doubt in the minds of any of the people who travel by tramway from the suburbs every day that the removal of the competition between the tramways and the omnibuses will inevitably result in a rise in fares."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1929; cols. 1053–54, Vol. 225.]
I think the hon. Member very much overrates the influence of the speeches which he and those who supported him made during the Battersea election. A very large number of the citizens of London do think for themselves, and they do not take advice of that kind. They think for themselves, and they do not take as gospel everything which is said on the election platform by hon. Members opposite.
Take, for example, my own Division. Somebody—I know not whom—has circulated very widely in my constituency a number of postcards asking the electors to post them to their representatives in Parliament in order to protest against these traffic Bills. Although I have in my constituency a large number of poor people who might be seriously affected if they had any fears about this matter I have only received 17 or 18 of those postcards. Four of those postcards came from one house and three of them came from another house, and consequently they are not very widely representative of the very terrible fear on the part of those who live in the poorer parts of my constituency as to what may happen if these Bills are passed. I have very little doubt that a certain number of those people who heard the speeches of the hon. Member for South Battersea and the speeches of those who supported him on the platform really had instilled into them during the Battersea election a very serious fear indeed.
If the hon. Member for South Battersea said in his election speeches the things which he stated in this House I can very readily understand that the people who were vitally interested in matters of that kind might think that a public man appealing for their suffrages would be extremely careful as to his language; and that if the hon. Member used language calculated to cause fear the electors were entitled to think that there was something to be afraid of in these Bills.
When, however, the hon. Gentleman says that the Bill proposes to hand over to a private business the right to place a tax on the citizens, when he says that it will inevitably result in a rise in fares, and when he says that it means getting rid of the London trams by a private Bill, he is either saying that about which he is careless, or that about which he has made very little inquiry, or that which he knows to be untrue. I will only say that, while it may be that he raised in Battersea sufficient deadly fear to bring him to this House, that type of electioneering will only work once in the same constituency, and at the next election he will find that the electors of Battersea will take a different view. At any rate, there is no worse type of electioneering than carrying out the
principle, which the hon. Gentleman carried out, of preying upon and increasing the fears of the electors.
Let me take in turn the things which have been said. Let me take the statement that this Bill is to get rid of the London trams—because, unless the statement means that, it means nothing at all. It is quite true that Parliament, either in a private Bill or in a public Bill, can do practically everything, but that statement is intended to convey that this Bill gets rid of the London trams. In the first place, let me point out that there is not a word from first to last in either of these Bills which in any way derogates from the duty of the London County Council to provide the services which it has undertaken to provide by the system of London trams. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] There is not a word in this Bill which in any way affects the statutory duty of the London County Council to provide trams, and to keep those trams. [Interruption.] It is not a matter about which there can be any difference of opinion—

Mr. B. SMITH: Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the Bills themselves are enabling Bills, the object being to enable the London County Council to transfer the management of their undertaking to another undertaking.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The first thing which has to be considered is that:
The associated undertakings shall at all times be maintained in good and efficient working order and condition and be operated as a unified system of transport so that adequate travelling facilities are provided for the public.
The hon. Member says that this is an enabling Bill, but an enabling Bill can only enable people to do that which it directly says they may do. This Bill enables the London County Council and the Combine to enter into agreement, but no where is there anything in either of these Bills which enables the London County Council either to part with their trams or to get rid of their statutory obligation to maintain them and carry on their services.

Mr. BARNES: rose—

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I am not going to give way about things as to which there is absolutely no question; I
am going to continue what I have to say with regard to the Bill. Again, there is nothing in these Bills which allows or enables the London County Council to get rid of its obligation to provide workmen's fares. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for South Battersea was right, that a deadly fear was raised in the Battersea Division when that was suggested to the electors of Battersea, but there is nothing in either of these Bills which alters, or allows anyone to alter, the statutory provisions in regard to workmen's fares in the Metropolitan area. Those statutory provisions were contained, in the first place, in, the various Acts of Parliament which authorised the London tramways. I have one here as an illustration, the Metropolitan Electric Tramways Act, and there is also the London United Tramways Act, and a number of others. They provide that:
At all times after the opening of the tramway for public traffic the promoters shall and are hereby required to run a proper and sufficient service of carriages for artisans, mechanics and daily labourers each way every morning and every evening at such hours not being later than eight o'clock in the morning or earlier than five o'clock in the evening as may be most convenient for such workmen going to and from their work at fares not exceeding one halfpenny for every mile or fraction of that distance.
All of those obligations were taken over by the London County Council, and they are imposed by Statute. There is no word from beginning to end of these Bills which authorises any diminution of that statutory duty, or which authorises the making of any agreement which brings about any diminution of that statutory duty.

Mr. W. BENNETT: This statutory charge of ½d. per mile is double what the London County Council charge, and, if the Combine makes the statutory charge of ½d. per mile, that will be raising the fares to nearly double. The hon. and learned Gentleman is proving my case.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: First of all, I am pointing out that there is a statutory obligation. In the second place, I am pointing out that that statutory obligation is not interfered with. I am further assured, not merely by those who represent the London County Council, but by those who represent the other
bodies, that there is absolutely no idea or suggestion of interfering with the workmen's fares in any way, or with the workmen's services. There is another thing which the London County Council cannot do; they cannot get rid of their sinking fund. The hon. Member for South Battersea was pleased to ask whether this Bill would enable the London County Council to get rid, or would lead to the London County Council getting rid, of its sinking fund, but there again he is dealing with something which is a statutory duty, and again there is not a word in this Bill which enables the London County Council to get rid of that statutory duty.
Let me come to another matter about which there was some debate, and as to which, so far as I know, there is no statutory obligation, that is to say, the matter of the mid-day fares. As one who conies down to business mainly between the hours of eight and 10, and who, therefore, has to pay full fare, I have some little interest in realising how the mid-day fares are financed. It is quite clear that, if the London County Council's trains are such a paying undertaking as the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) would make out, the loss which is incurred on the mid-day fares must be made up by those, who go to business between eight and 10 and return after half-past four, and who are, after all, a very large proportion of the London population; and the position today is that they, for their necessary journeys in going to and from their business, are being used to finance people who go about merely for pleasure during the day. I do not say that everyone who goes about during the day goes about for pleasure, but it is perfectly clear—[Interruption.] That may be the hon. Member's style, but it is not everyone's style. It is clear that the present system results in a considerable amount of waste in the middle of the day. You have only to stand in any thoroughfare where omnibuses go over the tram routes and yon will see omnibus after omnibus and tram after tram comparatively empty. That obviously is a wasteful proceeding. If by co-ordination you can get rid of that, you get rid of a very considerable amount of the loss which at present has to be made up by those who go to business early in the morning, and you make
it more likely that the fares during business hours will be reduced.
Let us come to the question of what is meant by "getting rid of." Some hon. Members opposite talk as though, when the time came that the debt would be paid off, the Combine would get the trains for nothing. The position clearly is that the capital invested in the County Council undertaking remains the same. That capital ranks for its return, and under these Bills, so far as there is any ranking capital at all, their ranking capital must be based upon exactly the same principles as the ranking capital of the Combine, and, if the position is that the Combine gets a greater return as the result of this, so also, out of the pool, the County Council will get an increased return on its capital. There are some people who consider—this is not the first time I have heard it in connection with Socialist politics—that the only capital in connection with an undertaking is that which is either shown in the statement of capital, or shares issued or something of that kind, or loan capital. But that is not the right way to arrive at the capital of an undertaking, and the County Council undertaking will have its capital arrived at in exactly the same way as the Combine's capital, and it will get the same return.
We come to the question of control, and here a very serious mistake was made by all three of the Members on that side of the house who spoke on the last occasion. They said the Metropolitan boroughs would have no right to make representations or to be heard, and they based that upon the definition of local authority. It is clear from the Bill that, first of all, any local authority whose area or district is wholly or partly within the London traffic area will have the right to make representations with regard to the alteration of the general standard of fares, rates or charges or withdrawn services, and also with regard to the order or priority of developments and extensions. They will be able to approach the Minister, and say there is a need for development or extension, and to ask for an inquiry. Further, on any matter which affects thoses local authorities, the Minister can direct that any local authority affected shall have the right to be consulted. The definition of "local
authority" is "the council of any county or of any county or other municipal borough," and for this purpose, under the Interpretation Act, and also under the London Local Government Act, the London boroughs are municipal boroughs.

Mr. SCURR indicated dissent.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I take responsibility for my own interpretation, and I am told that is the opinion of those who have been consulted by the authorities. I am told, further, that if there is the smallest doubt as to whether municipal boroughs include the London boroughs, words will be introduced which will leave no conceivable doubt.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is that statement made on behalf of the county council?

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: As a lawyer I have no doubt whatever about it, but I realised that there were other people who had doubts, and I consulted the promoters of both Bills. I find their clear intention was that those words should cover the Metropolitan boroughs, and I have an assurance from the promoters of both Bills that if there is the smallest doubt about it it will be put right in Committee. Under those circumstances, that point disappears at once.
There is another point I want to deal with on this question of control. It was stated that there were important differences between the sort of control that was suggested in the Blue Report, and the control suggested in this Bill. If one looks at the Blue Report, one finds that the controlling authority which is suggested is really the London Traffic Advisory Committee, in conjunction with, and in discussion with, such local authorities as are affected. In addition to that, the purposes of control are to ensure extension or development, proper scales of fees, and adequate services. Every one of these matters is dealt with by public control under these by-laws in Clauses 9 and 10 of the London County Council Bill and under Clauses 9 and 10 of the London Electric Railway Company's Bill. Under those circumstances, it is idle to say that there is not public control with regard to the things that matter. The things that matter are undoubtedly fares, the possibility of extension of the services, and in addition to
that, the possibility of withdrawal of the services, and full and adequate representation. So much for that point.
Another question which was raised was as to the personnel of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, but I find when I look at the London Traffic Act that these matters of co-ordination are matters in respect of which additional members of the Traffic Advisory Committee have, under the First Schedule, the right to be consulted. Therefore, when matters affecting co-ordination come before the Traffic Advisory Committee, the additional members must be taken in and must take part. In addition to that, I find that in any case, where the Minister thinks fit, he may direct that the additional members shall form part of the Committee when considering, and when reporting to and advising him upon, any matter or any question referred to the Committee under this Act or in connection with any of the matters in Part II of the Schedule. Therefore, under that also, there is a considerable amount of public control. There was one other matter about which I found that some constituents of mine were a little anxious. That was the question of staffs. No one can say that there is not full provision under these by-laws for the compensation of any members of the staffs who may be displaced. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Only the Council's employés!"]. I thought that it was the Council's employés and the Council's tramways about which Members opposite were so solicitous, and the only anxiety which has been expressed to me has been by employés of the Council. It is abundantly clear that the Clause of the County Council Bill which deals with compensation—Clause 11—provides an ample and full measure of compensation and ensures that no members of the staff of the County Council shall suffer in any way as a result of the co-ordination of the London traffic services.
What of the advantage? There again, quite apart from the advantage of control of the traffic above ground, there is the other matter in which certainly my own constituents and many constituents in South-East London and North-East London are absolutely interested and very seriously interested, and that is the provision of further traffic facilities. It is abundantly clear to every one that the provision of
further traffic facilities overground is a practical and physical impossibility, and the one thing we shall get from this coordination of London traffic is the provision of three underground services which will do a very great deal to relieve the difficulties under which the people in South-East London and North-East London suffer at the present time. [AN HON. MEMBER: "The ratepayers' money!"] No, it will be the ratepayers in one sense, in exactly the same sense that every man who pays his railway fare is a ratepayer supporting a railway, but in no other sense.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell said something about the contribution of trams to the roads of London. I am told that the contribution to the Road Fund, which also goes to relieve the expenditure on roads in London, by the omnibuses which belong to the Combine, is no less than £600,000 per annum. Under these circumstances, the £30,000 which, it is said, is the amount which the trams relieve the ratepayers of London, sinks into insignificance. I listened with a great deal of admiration to the peroration of the hon. Member for Mile End. No one could listen to that peroration without being moved by it. He gave us a vision of the growth of London and of the commerce of London as though he was entranced by the wonderful growth of the commerce of this great city. It was one of the most perfect cases of the apotheosis of private enterprise that I have ever heard. It is an amazing thing that such an apotheosis of private enterprise should come in the tardy way it Cid at the end of a speech objecting to private enterprise under public control being utilised to bring great relief to the traffic problem of London and extensive serf ices to those who have to work and earn their daily bread in this great city.

Mr. B. SMITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has taken up pretty well half-an-hour of the time of the House, and I think T am right in saying that he has not added one iota to the wisdom of the House or anything of benefit to the two Bills which we are discussing. He has been far more concerned with criticising the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Battersea (Mr. W. Bennett) for, as he
said, imparting fear to the electorate, a practice in regard to which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself is no mean hand, in view of the fact that he had the protection of his own Fascisti when he spoke at a meeting held at the Rotherhithe Town Hall.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The hon. Member has used a phrase which I do not understand—"my Fascisti." I have never had the smallest connection with any such illegal body during the whole of my life, and as far as exercising the fears of the electorate is concerned, have now been returned three times with an overwhelming majority, the largest on the last occasion.

Mr. SMITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt remember that he had the protection of these gentlemen when he spoke at the Rotherhithe Town Hall about four years ago. He has referred to the question as to whether under the by-laws the County Council tramways are in danger of going out of the control of that body. The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, I think, that if and when these Bills become law, the management of the London County Council tramways will be definitely in the hands of the Combine. If he does not know it, may I add to his little store of knowledge by telling him that that is a fact. That is an arrangement with which everybody who has given any consideration to these Bills is already cognisant.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: If the hon. Member misrepresents me, he must expect to be put right. They will be under one management, subject to the control of the Minister of Transport and the public authorities set up by the London Traffic Act of 1924.

Mr. SMITH: As I shall show later on, there will be no such thing as public control in any shape or form in the event of these two Bills passing. The hon. and learned Member has been at great pains to tell us that under no circumstances can the fares on the trams be raised. Had he taken a little more trouble he would have discovered that workmen's fares are slightly more than half the statutory fare that could be charged to workmen at this moment. Therefore, it is a possibility that within
the Statute they can increase the fares, although I doubt very much whether they will do so. The hon. and learned Member has given us advice at large. He ought to give us accurate advice, and he ought to know his subject when he begins to talk about it. He complained that a certain type of traffic is being exploited by the council for the support of the midday fares. He omits the fact that, if that argument be the correct argument, they are also being exploited to pay for the uneconomic workmen's fares, and that the three combined fares make one source of revenue from which the income of the tramways is derived. Therefore, it is pointless to make a grievance, a middle class grievance, that he objects to make any contribution to the assistance of the artisan or to what he calls the pleasure seekers who use the midday fares. His picture of a sinking fund reminds me of a cartoon, suitable for the General Election, of the Prime Minister with his head through a lifebuoy, representing "That sinking feeling."
The hon. and learned Member says that, as a lawyer, he has no doubt that in Clause 2 the term "municipal boroughs" includes the 28 metropolitan boroughs. I wish the lawyers would agree amongst themselves on this subject. The hon. and learned Member assured us, out of his own knowledge of the law, that what he had stated was a fact, but I have here an opinion from another lawyer. A letter was sent by Mr. Herbert Morrison to Mr. Preston-Hillary, Assistant. Solicitor to the London County Council. Morrison wrote:
21st February, 1929.
Dear Sir,
Would you he good enough to let me know whether the phrase 'the council of any county or other municipal borough,' includes a metropolitan borough.
The reply was:
Dear Sir,
Referring to your letter of to-day's date, in my opinion"—
He is modest enough to say that it is in his opinion. He is not at all dogmatic about it.
the phrase 'the council of any county or other municipal borough,' standing by itself does not include a metropolitan borough. A metropolitan borough is obviously not a county, and the Interpreta-
tion Act, 1889, defines a municipal borough as meaning as respects England and Wales ally place for the time being subject to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882.
That letter is from an authority equally as good as the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member, after dogmatising over the matter, went on to say that if he was wrong, the matter would be put right upstairs. If it is going to be put right upstairs, that is evidence that our criticism in regard to the interpretation was right.
I want to deal more with the Minister than with the merits of the two Bills. As one who has some regard for public decencies—I use that term advisedly—as one who, with my colleagues on the Committee, has served since 1924 in a genuine effort to bring about complete co-ordination of. London traffic, I have a distinct personal feeling that, with the advent of these Bills and the backing of the Minister, I have been used, and I resent it. May we look a little into the history of the Report that is before the House? The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), when he spoke last week, gave reasons for supporting the Bills. The Report in five of its pages is a complaint of the Traffic Committee as a whole. The Report began with a letter of the 9th January, 1929, when the Minister asked us to go into the matter. We say, that is the whole Committee—I am quoting only parts of the Report—that:
Co-ordination of passenger transport services in the London area in one form or another has been repeatedly urged for about 25 years. Recommendations on this subject were made by the Royal Commission of 1905, and also by the Kennedy-Jones Committee in 1920 … We recommend that these proposals should be carefully examined with the least possible delay, and offer to undertake such examination if you so desire.
The result of that Report was that on the 19th April, 1926, the Minister complimented the Committee on the work they had done, on their having held a laborious inquiry and on the preparation of their able Report. He then said that he was not in a position to form an opinion on the proposal, and he would not attempt to do so. He agreed, therefore, with the Sub-Committee that a proposal put forward with such authority ought to be fully and impartially examined. The authority, incidentally, was the representative of the Combine
at one of the three inquiries held in regard to traffic facilities. The Minister, thereupon, said that he would be glad if the Traffic Committee would arrange for this or some other Sub-Committee:
To discuss with the companies and municipalities engaged in the operation of transport undertakings in the London area whether any further co-operation or Combined action is possible or desirable.
The right hon. Gentleman asked us to go into the matter. He will not deny that. He asked the Committee to give their services and to use in a perfectly voluntary capacity any spare time or any knowledge that they might have of the traffic services of London, to enable him as the Minister, as the public representative, not as the chairman of the Anti-Socialist Union, not as somebody obsessed with one political outlook, but as someone who is the head of a public Department and has to look after the public interests. He referred the matter to the Committee, who were representative of many interests, including public interests. The Report came before us and was gone into. We said that in our previous Reports of the various committees that were held and the evidence adduced at the inquiries relating to North and North-East London, still further emphasised the necessity for unification. On the 27th January we presented a Report, entitled the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, known as the Blue Report. The Report was gone into by the Minister and he undertook that he would submit that Report to the Cabinet if he was satisfied that the Report was good. It, apparently, was good, because we were informed that he did submit it to the Cabinet, and he came back and asked us to continue our work. We con-tinned our work, and our Report concluded as follows:
Government approval of the general principles of the proposed scheme. The Committee have not had any formal negotiations with any of the transport undertakers, but from information obtained informally there is every reason to believe that the proposals set out herein provide a basis, upon which formal negotiations might he opened with a reasonable prospect of success. It is thought, however, that no useful purpose would be served by attempting to negotiate unless the Committee were in a position to indicate the outlines of a scheme, coupled with an assurance that, in its main principles it would meet with the approval of the Government, and that if it
were generally acceptable to the local authorities and companies concerned, the Government would be prepared either to promote or to support the necessary legislation to enable effect to be given to it.
Has the Minister of Transport anything to complain about with regard to the people mentioned here? In February, 1927, he circularised all the municipalities, and I have their replies here. Not a single one turned down the Blue Report. They all gave qualified acceptance to it. They said they would accept it in principle, but very naturally wanted to know how it would affect them when it came to transferring their own undertakings. The British Automobile Traction Company and Messrs. Thomas Tilling and Company were definitely against it. For 13 months these letters have been with the Minister of Transport. He promised that he would interview the municipal authorities. I should like to ask whether he has, in fact, interviewed the municipalities and the interested parties. He said that arrangements had been made for a conference to be held with the local authorities on 3rd November. Has that conference been held? The right hon. Gentleman is silent; apparently the conference has never been held.
Properly handled the whole of the interested parties in the traffic facilities of London were prepared to come into one sound co-ordinating scheme. The scheme you have to-day although it may be called a co-ordinating scheme is not co-ordination at all. How can it be a co-ordination of the traffic facilities of London when 11 different interests are left outside? The London County Council and the trams, the omnibus and tube companies, are two parties. They are the two largest parties. Stress has been laid by the hon. Member for Wandsworth on the fact that between them they carry 77 per cent. of the total number of passengers of London; but that is no reason why you should bring these two parties together and immediately intensify the competition which has hitherto existed with a view to forcing unwilling people into something in which they have had no voice at all. It was the duty of the Minister, with the opportunities before him, to bring about not only a scheme that would largely have eliminated any opposition but one which would not have
created any political controversy in this House, one which would have carried with it a measure of agreement with the people concerned. In that case the result would not have been the unholy system brought about by these Bills.
The Minister of Transport went to the Cabinet, came back to the Committee, and we went on with our work. Every Member of the Committee is complaining and will endorse the statement I have made; even the hon. Member for Wandsworth who signed the Blue Report. He also signed the Majority Report; I do not know where he is quite yet. But all Members of the Committee signed the Report and are complaining that the Minister of Transport has not done those things which a Minister of Transport ought to have done. If the hon. Member for Wandsworth denies it I will read the Report.

Sir H. JACKSON: Read it now!

9.0 p.m.

Mr. SMITH: This is what is said in the Report:
We have been informed that during the course of these negotiations it was intimated to the promoters, that having regard to the heavy Government commitments in connection with public legislation, it would not be practicable in any circumstances, for Parliamentary time to be found during the lifetime of the present Parliament for a Government Bill. As a result of this intimation"—
This is your complaint—
it is understood that the promoters considered to what extent the passenger transport services they provide could be coordinated by agreement, but were both advised that they lacked the powers which are now sought in these Bills. By this time it was late in the autumn of 1928, and they accordingly, without reference to the Ministry, decided to promote the Bill upon which we are now asked to report.
That is the complaint, that the Minister of Transport, who promised to submit out Report to the Government and to the Committee as a whole, said that it would take two years before such a Report would ever find legislation in this House. What does the Minister do? Does he call the Traffic Committee together? Does he meet them and say, "I have considered this with my colleagues in the Cabinet and I regret to tell you that the Cabinet cannot find time for it." Not at all. On the contrary, he invites the representatives of the Combine and the London
County Council as a whole and very beneficently said: "Of course, I have asked you to come here, but I have a very able servant in Sir Henry Maybury"—and we all agree with that—"and if you like him to take the chair I can assure you that he will be discretion itself." At that meeting an intimation was conveyed to these parties direct, not to the Committee, that there was no possibility of Government time being given for these Bills. In this very Report they say that Government time should be given to implement the Blue Report in its entirety. Will the hon. Member for Wandsworth deny that?

Sir H. JACKSON: Certainly not. We stand by that Report.

Mr. SMITH: Yet you were complaining that you wanted your first love. The Minister of Transport has sidestepped the Committee and given advice to other bodies to get about their job.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The hon. Member has no right at all to make any such state-merit. He says that I have asked and advised other bodies to promote these Bills. I must ask him to substantiate that statement.

Mr. SMITH: If the Minister invites the two largest bodies to a conference and suggests that his director-general of roads would be willing to take the chair, and if it is conveyed to the two parties at that conference that there cannot be public legislation, does not that by inference imply that the Minister advises them to promote private legislation?

Colonel ASHLEY: It was just to let them know exactly the position.

Mr. SMITH: My grievance is that the right lion. Gentleman ought to have let the Committee know, the Committee which has worked so honestly for him.

Colonel ASHLEY: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Committee did not know?

Mr. SMITH: The Committee has never had it reported to them officially that Parliamentary time could not be afforded for these Bills. It is in this Report. It is not a question whether I knew it or not. It is what is done officially or un-
officially, and I stand by the official thing all the time. When this is done, what is going to be the general effect?

An HON. MEMBER: You will get a job all right.

Mr. SMITH: I shall not get it with the Combine, and I shall not get it with the London County Council. Whatever job I get it will not be an interest job with the Combine.

Mr. BROAD: All the friends of hon. Members opposite cannot say that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I must ask hon. Members to keep to the Bill.

Mr. SMITH: I sat and heard the Debate last week, and I can only say, at the least, that I was astounded by the type of representative on the opposite benches through the whole of that Debate, for practically every one, more so than to-night, was interested legally or financially in the whole thing.

Mr. TASKER: On a point of Order. Is it in order for charges of this kind to be levelled at members of the London County Council? I emphatically deny the statement, as a member of the London County Council since 1910. I have no interest in the London General Omnibus Company or any other concern.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As a matter of order, I do not think that there was anything out of order in what the hon. Member said. Of course, if any hon. Member feels himself impugned, he has the right to make a personal explanation.

Mr. TASKER: Was it not a disgraceful charge to make?

Sir H. JACKSON: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw his statement. I have no interest of any kind, financial or otherwise, in the Combine. The suggestion is that people on this side have some financial interest. I first of all deny the statement, and I hope that in decency my hon. Friend will withdraw his statement so far as I am concerned.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: I wish to say the same thing. I have no interest of any sort or kind.

Mr. SMITH: It is unfortunate that I should first be challenged by hon. Mem-
bers opposite, and that when I retort there is a demand that I should withdraw.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to make against a Member of this House who spoke on the last occasion the accusation that he was legally or financially interested in the Debate, and when that statement is repudiated he gives no apology?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As a matter of order, I do not think that the hon. Member is out of order.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. SMITH: What I said I shall repeat for the benefit of hon. Members. I said that last week the majority of the people—I did not say any specific individual—were interested either legally or financially in the Bill. That is what I said.

Sir R. HORNE: Who were they?

Mr. SMITH: Look at the OFFICIAL REPORT, and you will see. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was himself present.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is impossible for anyone to remember exactly who were there. I suggest to the hon. Member that he should get back to the Bill.

Mr. SMITH: I agree. I should have been back to the Bill long ago if it had not been for the interruptions of hon. Members opposite. I was saying that not only has the Committee as a whole said in the Report that it still adheres to the terms of the Blue Report. Representatives of the traffic Combine on the Committee and representatives of the London County Council on the Traffic Committee signed this Blue Report and said that they agreed with it. "We have refrained from signing the Traffic Advisory Committee's Report," they say,
because we represent upon the Committee the promoters of the Bills under consideration. We do not dissent from the terms of the Report, and are prepared to recommend to our respective undertakings the acceptance of the specific Amendments included in the Report in so far as they are applicable to the Bills.
The promoters themselves say, as well as the backers of the Bill, with the Committee as a whole, that they stand by the Blue Report. The Blue Report postulates public control not public ownership. Here I say that some of us who signed that Report, with colleagues on the other side politically, had to stretch out a long way to get a compromise that gave effective public control as against the thing that we have to-day. They compromised in signing, and we compromised. The effort was to get an effective co-ordination scheme. To-day we are not going to get it. The local authorities that have riot had an opportunity of being consulted on this matter—through no fault of the Committee, but through lack of diligence on the part of the Minister, I suggest, he having had their reply before him for months—are East Ham, West Ham, Barking, Erith, Bexley, Dartford, Leyton, Ilford and Croydon. Four hundred small omnibus proprietors and two larger undertakings, including the British Automobile Traction Company and Messrs. Tillings, are against. I understand that the latter have withdrawn any objection that they had originally. So that there was this unique opportunity of getting the thing that was asked for in the Blue Report—effective co-ordination.
Much has been said about the finance of the London County Council. I am not going into the intricacies of finance, but I want to put this proposition honourably to any Member of this House. Has the London County Council ever had difficulty in raising money? Has the Combine at this moment difficulty in raising money for the building of tubes? Every speaker who has mentioned the subject has said that, when given this measure of co-ordination, the Combine will be able to raise money to get on with the tubes. Is not that in itself an admission of want of efficiency, of want of business enterprise, that bond-holders will be able to get money at far more favourable terms than the Combine? Yet the private enterprise that is vaunted here so emphatically, says that as things at present stand it is impossible to raise the necessary capital for the projection of more tubes, though tubes are a crying necessity. This is the burden of the whole story. Therefore I say that had the Blue Report found acceptance with the Minister and the
Cabinet, had it been brought before this House in a proper manner with a view to effective legislation, there would have been little difficulty within a short period in getting money on far more beneficial terms than will ever be done by the coordination of these two bodies only.
Have we any precedent for public control? In Berlin there is not nearly the amount of congestion which we have here and in Berlin the amalgamation of the transport undertakings has now been sanctioned. Tramways, elevated and underground railways and omnibuses are all coming under municipal control, and they will be operated as a single undertaking and according to an identical policy. They of course had to form company because the terms applying to an American loan precluded them from taking over definite municipal control. They had to form a company backed by municipal money, but, to-day, in Berlin the whole of the traffic interests are operating as a municipal body with identity of fares and identity of management and if there is any return it will go back to the community as a whole. If Berlin can do it why cannot we do it? What is the objection. Some people say it is Socialism, while others call it Bolshevism, but, if you leave political phrases aside, it is the soundest common sense to say that all the elements of transport in London should be properly co-ordinated under one body, even including the local main line services. That is the only means of securing an equal distribution.
When one goes through the reports daily one sees that, even with the restricted streets as they are now, the Committee are continually getting representations from the London County Council that there is too much competition. Again what is the burden of the story? Originally the trams and omnibuses competed. With the advent of the War, and after the War the Auto omnibuses competed with the Combine omnibuses and compelled them to compete with their own trams. The result, of which was that the M.E.T. and the L.U.T. were hopelessly bankrupt—or if they were not actually bankrupt, the official receiver was in, so far as the M.E.T. was concerned. That has not yet happened to the London County Council or to any other municipal body. They
are not bankrupt and, except in two instances, the trams are not on the rates and they would be less on the rates if it were not for the competition which existed. Having, through the beneficent Labour Government, introduced the
London Traffic Bill which became an Act, the system of restricted streets gradually brought about a limiting of the number of licences and did away with the unholy competition of the omnibuses, and the omnibuses in turn were able to relieve the distress of their own trams.
In like manner distress was relieved on the whole of the municipal tramway undertakings of London—so much so that progressively, year by year, the trams have got into a better financial position and provided a inure efficient service. With the service becoming efficient and likely to become remunerative the Combine naturally looked on it with a jealous eye. I am not going to say that the Combine is unfair in what it is doing. I believe the Combine has a right to do that which the law permits it to do but we in this House have the right to say what that law should be. The fact remains that, with the element of competition gone, there is a tendency to bring these two bodies together by one of the political parties in the London County Council, backed by the very forward-thinking and very able Lord Ashfield, and his co-director Mr. Frank Pick. Then, I would ask, are the Press in favour of this? The "Economist" of 3rd November said:
While it is possible that some people are crying out before they are hurt, the vagueness of the report makes it all the morn essential that any agreement reached between the County Council and the Underground group should receive the utmost possible publicity. For this reason we should be inclined to deprecate the suggestion that the approval of Parliament required to give effect to this agreement should lie obtained by means of a, series of private Bills rather than by a public Bill…As regards the details of the proposals themselves, the following broad propositions must be borne in mind. The first essential is full consideration of the rights and needs of the travelling public; the next is recognition of the fact that capital derived from a municipal loan possesses a higher status than that raised in the form of shares"—
That bears out what I said earlier—
simply because the shareholder has elected to take a risk which the bondholder has refused. The third is that while the average
citizen recognises the need for co-ordination ho will equally insist on maintaining some measure of control,
These Bills afford no measure of public control.
Rationalisation ought not to consist simply of handing over the terms to the Underground group. It should imply that the Underground group is prepared to accept a greater measure of public control.
The Underground group say in this Report and in the Blue Report that they are prepared to accept a measure of public control but the Minister, in my opinion, by dilatoriness has failed to take advantage of the unique opportunities that were presented in London. The practical acquiescence of all parties concerned with traffic could have been brought about. With the Government behind him the Minister could have given public legislation and could have given us a real co-ordination scheme which would have been of benefit to the operators and the undertakers and to the public of London as a whole.

Sir GEORGE HUME: I listened to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) with great interest because I realised that he was in a difficult place. I should like to pay a tribute to the work which he has done in connection with this problem and there are many others on both sides of the House to whom such a tribute could be paid. I agree with the extract which he has given from the "Economist." I have already said that I regarded it as a calamity that these Bills had to be brought in otherwise than as public Bills. I cannot say whether it would have been possible, at an earlier stage, to have brought them in as public Bills, but, in any case, the inevitable has happened. The problem, which is a most serious one for London, has become a political matter instead of being dealt with as a practical commonsense business matter.
This question dates back for some years. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe has referred to the London Traffic Act which was passed when the Socialist Government was in office. A distinguished member of the Socialist party in the House at that time and a few of his friends were much opposed to the London Traffic Act. I refer to my friend who occupies a position of eminence in the London County Council, Mr. Herbert
Morrison, a man of whom we feel proud. When the Blue Report was worked out and signed, with practical unanimity, and when the representatives of the trade unions added their names lo that report, it looked as though the opposition which, came from the quarter I have indicated would cease to operate. But the moment the Bill was drawn, otherwise than as a public Bill, absolutely on the lines of the report, without any variation—the moment that happened, then the opposition, which had not been able to make itself effective during the time of the Socialist Government, became very effective indeed. It was then alleged that great differences existed between the proposals of that responsible committee, and the actual proposals which are more or less outlined in these Bills. The result to-day is that our Socialist friends on the London County Council have got the Labour party in chains.
In the course of this Debate last week, it was alleged that there was a tremendous difference between the proposals in these Bills and the proposals in the Blue Report. Yet we have not had a single statement made in the House as to what those differences are, except that in the Blue Report there is postulated public control. My own view was that the public control in the Blue Report was not sufficient, but that was accepted. What is the difference in these proposals? It is still the same personnel, but it would not be a statutory advisory body, because in a private Bill you cannot get a statutory body created.

Mr. SMITH: Why bring in a private Bill?

Sir G. HUME: In years gone by, we knew perfectly well that this problem had to be tackled. The London County Council made efforts on several occasions. First of all I remember it was before the Local Government Board that we and other public bodies in London tried to get together, but we failed. Later, under the Geddes regime at the Ministry of Transport we again made an effort, and we succeeded in agreement then. A scheme was drawn up, and I venture to think that the public control arrangements then were far more effective than those suggested in the Blue Report. What happened then? The Ministry of Transport on that occasion refused to go for-
ward to get the powers which were necessary in order that the scheme might be put into force, and it broke down. Hon. Members on the other side ought to remember it, because some of the boroughs from which the greatest demand came were boroughs which were known as Labour boroughs. Deptford was one of the most insistent as to the necessity to getting more tube facilities. The Advisory Committee worked like Trojans with sub-committees sitting in different parts of London. I have read their reports, and there was insistence on their part as to the necessity of acting quickly. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe put his signature to this document as well, we are going to drift on year after year with such an insistent problem at our doors, and any authority stands by and does not do its best, could they not be blamed for not coming forward to try to solve the problem?
These Bills are not drawn exclusively for the benefit of the council and the Combine, but in the hope of seeing the railways and other bodies come in. I thought they were really coming in, and that the tramways and public undertakings would come in. We on the London County Council have got no reason to complain of the speeches made with reference to our tramways on the other side of the council chamber. When we hear so much of the iniquities of the wicked Tories and of the way in which they are always trying to pick the people's pockets, and then we get such tributes to a tramway undertaking which has been run for the last 25 years by Tory government, I think we can be extremely gratified. But I do not want to play the political game. I am too anxious to see something done in this matter. A very distinguished chairman on the London County Council belonging to the Progressive party, alias Liberal, some years ago said to me: "We made a capital mistake when we as a party decided that the trams should not only he taken over but operated by the London County Council. If we had not made that mistake, to-day the London County Council would have been a central municipal authority for London for controlling traffic." That is true. In the last few years people have been looking round anxiously to find some competent municipal authority to control transport and because of the false line
taken, there has been no authority available. On the London County Council an attempt was made to bring forward proposals for a larger authority. A Royal Commission turned that down and that being so, and being persuaded that this matter could not stand still, it was only open to the London County Council to take the line which it has. I do not blame hon. Members on the other side for being suspicious. If you are going forward with Bills asking for powers to come to agreements, I suppose it is in human nature for politicians of another colour to imagine that all sorts of wicked things are going to be done in the agreements.

Mr. THURTLE: It is a matter of experience.

Sir G. HUME: That is all very well, but consider the position of the London County Council. What do you imagine that council is going to do? Do you imagine that that body is going to take the people's trams and hand them over holes bolus to a private concern? Do you imagine that is possible? In a matter of this kind, if the tramways undertaking and all the amenities which the people now enjoy were gradually stripped from the public bit by bit, where would the majority of the London County Council be, and where would the Conservative party in London be? Do you imagine that the men over on the other side of the river are such foolish persons that they would play into the hands of the Opposition in that way? It is not for me to teach the Opposition a lesson in tactics, but, really, I am astounded at the way in which this matter has been fought throughout London during the last few weeks.
It has been alleged that the public is going to be stripped of this and that thing. Suppose they are not, and suppose, as a result of the agreements which are come to, we find that the public have greater amenities than before, and are able to book through on the trams, omnibuses and tubes, with better travelling facilities, and that we do not lose those things which we so much prize, and that we find there is a movement in the so much desired direction, and new tubes are constructed or at all events commenced—if all that happens, surely people will want to know what all this
means, and it will act as a boomerang. I would advise very much greater caution. I hope the House will not be intimidated by these melodramatic dreams of what may take place. We are talking about unified control, and in the Bill we are venturing to suggest provisions by which, if these arrangements come into operation, people using the London County Council tramway services, unless they read about it in the newspapers, would not really know that anything had happened. They will go on very much as in the past but instead of pulling against one another in London we shall have the opportunity—in so far as we can get the different interests within the scope of this agreement—by which co-operation will be obtained, and moneys will he concentrated in the direction and for the purpose for which they are needed, namely, expansion. I am sorry, because political feeling has been aroused by the procedure that has been adopted, but on the whole I am satisfied that, if the thing is carried through properly and if the negotiators do their duty fairly, the one side and the other looking at the public interest, it will have been a very good thing indeed to get these Bills through the House and into operation as soon as possible.

Mr. STRAUSS: We have listened to some very remarkable speeches. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) was very angry with the Minister of Transport, but the cause of his anger I was not able to discover; the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) tried to explain some legal quibbles, but I can assure him that those legal quibbles do not really either worry or interest us; and as far as the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) is concerned, he has painted a very glowing picture of the future, in very attractive colours, if these Bills should find their way on to the Statute Book.
As far as I am personally concerned, I cannot see my way to support this Bill, for one simple reason, and that is that I fail to discover in the whole Bill a single word which will solve the great problem of London traffic. I have no doubt that it will be a good business for the Combine if the amalgamation takes
place. I feel confident that those astute gentlemen who direct the affairs of the Combine would not for a moment entertain the scheme if they did not think it was in the interests of their shareholders. After all, the first object of a private transport company is to earn dividends for its shareholders and remuneration and fees for its directors. On the other hand, the first object of a municipal service is to provide convenient facilities for the travelling public, and I am sure that in no town in the whole wide world is that more necessary than it is in this great, thickly populated metropolis of ours. To hand anything in the shape of a monopoly over to private control and private management is, in my humble opinion, a great mistake.
London traffic is a matter of public concern. I should have thought the proper way to deal with an important matter affecting the welfare of millions of people would have been to introduce into this House a public Bill, in charge of a Minister of the Crown, and I certainly regret, more than I care to express, that the Minister of Transport could not have seen his way, during the four years that his party has been in power, and he a distinguished Member of the present Government, to have introduced a Measure giving some public body authority and power to deal with this vital question. I do not wish to enter into a controversy on the question of the trams, whether or not they are a profitable undertaking. As far as I can understand the figures, I cannot see that the ratepayers of London have suffered very much in the cost of the working of their tramway system. On the other hand, we must all admit that the trams are a great convenience and a great advantage to thousands and thousands—I may say millions—of workers in this great metropolis. But what I fear, and what I think we all fear, is that, if these Bills should find their way upon the Statute Book, the fares in this great town of ours will be increased. If our fears are not based on common sense, I see no reason why the promoters of these Bills should not see their way to insert some provision guaranteeing that the present fares that are in operation on our tramway system should be continued. If such a provision were put in, I am sure that some, at least, of the opposition to these Bills would be removed.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) saying last week that anyone outside Bedlam could not conceive of scrapping our tramway system, but I am afraid that there are some people who do think that the traffic of London could be carried on without the trams. I am sure that we in London appreciate what the trams have done for the workers of London. Speaking as one who has lived all his life in London, and watched the development of London's traffic, I am sure I am voicing the feelings of many of those who use our trams when I say that we fear that, should the tramway system be absorbed by the Combine, cheap fares would be a thing of the past. I can give instances. In the constituency that I have the honour to represent in this House, where there is tramway competition, the omnibus fares are lower than where there is no tramway competition. From the Elephant and Castle, over Westminster Bridge, to the Embankment, and from the Elephant and Castle over Blackfriars Bridge, to the Embankment, where there is tramway competition, the omnibus fare is 1d., but from the Elephant and Castle, over London Bridge, to the City, where there is no tramway competition, the omnibus fare is 1d., and there is not a difference of 100 yards in those three routes.
That is what we are afraid of, and that is why we are prepared to oppose these Bills in their present form. The promoters of the Bill think that the appeal to the Minister of Transport is sufficient safeguard for the public, but I cannot share that view. Anyone who has taken the trouble to study the finance of the Combine will have found some difficulty in understanding their financial arrangements, and I am credibly informed that the Combine frequently make losses by putting omnibuses on unremunerative routes, with a view to developing in the future a remunerative service.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—I do not complain, but let us assume that such a policy is carried on in a wholesale fashion. A financial position could be created apparently showing such unsatisfactory figures as to compel the Minister of Transport, under the provisions of this Bill, to sanction a scheme involving an increase of fares all round. That is what we are afraid of.
I do not desire to speak at any great length, for we have already had speeches which, in my humble opinion, have taken up too much time, but I should like to remind the House of what the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth said on the last occasion. It was a very interesting speech, if he will allow me to say so, and in it he reminded us that the London Traffic Act was the first real step in the line of progress, or something of that kind. I have heard the cause of progress used in various directions, but I have never heard the elimination of competition referred to as progress. There is no doubt that the London Traffic Act enabled the Combine to get control of competitive concerns. Now they are casting longing eyes on our London trams. When we realise what the trams have done for London in the way of workmen's cars, cheap mid-day fares and all-night services, we have something for which to be thankful, and we should go very carefully before we support Measures of which we know so little. I should like to say a word to our Friends above the Gangway, because I put all our trouble down to the London Traffic Act of 1924.
The hon. Members above the Gangway rightly oppose these Bills, but I would like to remind them that they are really reared on the foundations which they themselves have laid. The Socialist Government of 1924 introduced this Measure supported by the then Conservative party—a most unholy alliance. Without the London Traffic Act of 1924 it would have been impossible to proceed with these Bills. References have been made to Mr. Herbert Morrison, who warned the Socialist Government of the danger or the steps which they were taking. I hope, therefore, that we shall in future take greater care if we have a Socialist Government in power. The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson)-expressed a pious sentiment at the conclusion of his speech last week, when he said that London traffic was too big a thing to be made the plaything of political doctrinaires. I should like to add another pious sentiment, and say that London traffic is too big a thing to be handed over to the tender mercies of private monopolists.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: The note on which the hon. Member for North
Southwark (Mr. Strauss) concluded his remarks reminded me of the opinion of Mr. Ernest Bevin, the General Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, in his letter of 23rd June, 1923, to the general manager of the London Suburban Traction Company in which he expressed the following view:
But we are resolved that the policy of inaction pursued by the Government, together with the stupid policy of competitive interests in London, shall not be used for the purpose of depressing the standard of livelihood of our members employed by your company.
That is a definite opinion on the subject of competition in transport services of London, and the way in which it is held to affect the welfare of the workers in the industry. One of the arguments which the promoters of the Bills have in mind is that the successful operation of the co-ordination proposed will be to raise and maintain the standard of life among the workers and the conditions of their work. Let me refer, so far as I am personally concerned, to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr). My name appears on the back of both these Bills, and I have no personal interest whatever of a pecuniary kind in any of the undertakings represented by what is commonly called the London Traffic Combine. I have no personal interest and no inducement of that sort to support the Bills. I support them as a London Member and as a Londoner, who has lived in the city all his life and has made some study of the conditions of London transport and the facilities necessary for the welfare of the workers.
In regard to the anxiety which it is thought in some quarters is felt by the inhabitants of London, I have received three postcards and one letter on the subject from the very large numbers of working men who live in my Division. The question of the co-ordination of London traffic on the general lines of these Bills was before the electorate of London at the time of the last County Council election in March, 1928. The result of that election, allowing for uncontested seats, was a Municipal Reform majority, the Municipal Reformers having received 315,000 votes, the Socialists 257,000, and the Liberals 97,000 votes. If there had been the apprehension which
is alleged to be felt among the electors of London, we would have had a different result; we would certainly have had a larger percentage of voters voting if they thought that their welfare and liberty was so much in danger. Only 35 per cent. was the average polled for the whole of London. Hon. Members on the Liberal Benches object to these Bills, but they do not object for the same reasons that are advanced by hon. Members of the Opposition. This question was referred to in the manifestoes of the three parties in the County Council election. In the Liberal manifesto it was stated:
Any scheme which would involve the transfer of their management—
That is the trams—
without providing great compensatory advantages and full municipal control must be resisted.
The Labour point of view is different. They said:
Recognising that the tramways are a very big factor in our traffic facilities, that under pressure from Labour they have been the pioneers of cheap fares and popular facilities,
There has been a municipal reform majority on the County Council for the past 20 years—
the Labour party is opposed to any scheme which would remove them from effective public control. On the contrary, the party stands for complete co-ordination for all London traffic under efficient municipal management.
Therefore, you have a divergence of view on that side of the House, so that their opposition need not be reckoned together, although they may have to go into the Lobby together. Let me again reassure the House as to the very large amount of alleged opposition to these proposals from the great body of Londoners. Only eight out of 28 Metropolitan Boroughs have expressed objection to the Bills, so that we may take it there is not the apprehension that is alleged to be felt. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), in his most interesting statement on the last occasion recited the recommendations which had been made towards these proposals of co-ordination, but he did not say one thing which he might have done. He did not do justice to the work which he has done as a member of the London Traffic Advisory Committee in rescuing London from the congestion and the great
difficulties which the traffic had to face before the Committee came into operation. They have enabled the traffic of London to make better use of the available streets and highways. [Interruption]. Conditions are not so bad as they would have been otherwise. But we want greater facilities, we want more railways, tubes and so on, and we are positively assured that we shall get them as a result of these proposals.
How much they are needed statistics will show. In 30 years the population of Greater London increased by 2,225,000. That figure is probably very much higher now. In the last report of Lord Ashfield's companies he notified us that the figure of 6,000,000 a day has been largely increased, and that it is approaching 5,000,000,000 a year. The need is greater, the facilities are greater, and the public are travelling more. They have every inducement to travel as the result of the efficient management of the services, and the fact that the public undertake the number of journeys per bead per year which they do is surely a tribute to the efficient management of those important undertakings. But, above and beyond that, we have to bear in mind how the population of Greater London has grown, and how important the traffic question, is in relation to housing.
It is quite unnecessary to engage in further controversy on the question of what the London County Council tramways have done in the past to contribute to the relief of the rates or the extent to which they have drawn on the rates. Everyone knows that they have done both, at different times. There was a time when they contributed, and there have also been times when they drew substantially on the pockets of the ratepayers.

Mr. LANSBURY: They have always contributed to the rates.

10.0.p.m.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Unfortunately, the outlook at the moment does not seem to be particularly favourable. I have a cutting from a newspaper, headed "L.C.C. Slump," which states that following a decline of more than 900,000 passengers in the last two weeks of January the London County Council tramways had a further slump in January. At the present moment the London. County Council tramways are subject to
competition, but under this co-ordinated scheme they will be protected from the prospect of future competition to which they may be open unless these proposals go through. Co-ordination has been largely approved of on all sides, and undoubtedly it is necessary for the sake of efficiency and for the sake of the prospects of future transport facilities. Some reference has also been made to this subject in the Press. I recently read the following paragraph in a well-known weekly newspaper which cannot be said frequently to throw bouquets at the Party to which I belong, and that is the "New Statesman" It wrote:
The struggle over the London Traffic Bill began in the House of Commons this week. In one of its aspects the Bill is designed to inaugurate an interesting experiment in the joint conduct of public utility services by public and private Looses. There are examples of this joint system already in the electricity services, and it is snore than likely that it will be imitated elsewhere. We are quite unable to share, in principle, the indignation that is felt against it by some whole-hogging advocates of nationalisation as a panacea. Clearly, there ought to be a co-ordinated scheme for London traffic, and clearly it is out of the question for this co-ordination to be secured at present on a basis of complete public ownership.
It goes on in that way at considerable length, and then it says:
From both these points of view the Traffic Bill merits the closest possible scrutiny, and we agree that so important an issue as the control of London's traffic ought not to be handled hurriedly by way of a Private Bill at the very end of a crowded Session. But opposition to the Bill on these grounds needs to be carefully distinguished from opposition merely because it proposes a mixed system of public and private enterprise.
The interests of the passengers on the London County Council tramways are to be safeguarded, the interests of the workers on those tramways are protected, and the value of the asset itself is protected under the Clauses of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I think it is in Clause 5. If the opposition to these Bills be on the ground that public ownership of all the undertakings is desirable, we shall have to wait a long time before this co-ordination can be brought into operation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Is it proposed that the London County Council should he endowed with the necessary powers to buy all the assets of the Com-
bine, and, if so, on what terms; and how long would it take to carry that through? Even if it were carried through, how do we know that the London County Council could manage these undertakings better than they are managed at present? If they were not managed well, the population of London would not gain as they do gain from the benefits of good management. The profits might go down, and probably would if one judges by nationalized management in other
instances. [Interruption.] Of course they would go down. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) suggested that he would be willing, apparently, to part with the ownership of the London County Council trams if the inducement were sufficient. It is only common sense to suggest that if the London County Council are to part with their tramways they should sell them for a valuable consideration. We do not propose to sell them at all.

Mr. LANSBURY: You are giving them away.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: No, we are not going to give them away. When I say "we," of course I mean the London County Council. They are not going to part with the ownership of the trams, and they safeguard the interests of the property itself, of these who use the trams, and of those who work on the trams. There is a valuable consideration in the benefits which will follow from the passing of these Bills—a valuable consideration for the passengers of all the transport services in London, and a valuable consideration, consequently, for all the citizens of London who are interested in being able to get cheaply, quickly and frequently from and to their work or from and to their homes. I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. SNELL: The hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) has repeated in substance what has been said already in support of this Bill. It is as though the promoters of the Bill were writing a company prospectus, and are quite unwilling to consider what is to be the position of the public who now have ownership of and control over these tramways. I, too,
am in favour of co-ordination. It is quite certain that the present system of traffic in London will require to be very seriously overhauled. But if we are to have a system of co-ordination it ought to be a public system, over which the public can exercise sonic control, and not a system under which they are limited to two tame representatives of the majority on the London County Council, sitting in the presence of a great band of private undertakers of traffic.
We have heard of the record of the London County Council in regard to its tramways, and an hon. Member opposite has told us that for 20 years the majority on that council have supported municipal trams. That is perfectly true, but they have clone so because the Labour and Progressive groups kept them up to it, and for no other reason. It is quite a different matter for hon. Members to listen to the genial speeches of members of the county council when they come here asking for privileges, but it is quite another matter for their colleagues who have worked with them on the county council and who know what their real attitude has been to the tramway system.
The hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) who introduced these Bills said: "We are proud of our tramway system." I could not help feeling that the hon. Member was proud of the tramway system in much the same way as he was proud of the goose that he fattens up for Christmas before he hands it over to the slaughterer. I think pride for any system would lead anybody to attempt to make it as strong as possible for the people of London. We have been asked if we thought the London County Council would be willing to hand over the tramway system to somebody else. My reply is that things are not done in that way either on the London County Council or in the City. There are other ways of getting the same end.
We are told that this Bill embodies a public and not a private scheme. I resent this solemn parade of good intentions on the part of those who are promoting these Bills as if we were children to be led away with protestations of that kind. As one who has sat on the London County Council for some years, I want to say that in my humble opinion the majority on the London County Council
all the time I was a member and since have crabbed a great undertaking and have never given it a fair chance. Every opportunity has been seized by the majority on the London County Council to play into the hands of those who manipulate figures on behalf of private interests. Hon. Members who are supporting these Bills apply a system of finance in dealing with the tramway system which they would not dream of applying to their own businesses.
Let me remind the House of what my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) said earlier it the Debate. In London, we have to remember that in 20 years' time the ratepayers will have an enormously valuable asset in the tramways in their possession capable of earning a great revenue, and we want to know before we hand them over to the predatory gang behind these Bills what is going to be the position of our tramways in 20 years' time. It is all very well to say that the promoters of this Bill are not animated with bad motives, but we have to take ordinary business precautions. We have to protect the property of the people of London in this great undertaking which has cost them many millions and which is worth more to-day than they have spent upon it.
I lament that the London County Council has lent itself to this shabby trick of bringing in a Measure of this kind as a private Bill. These Measures deal with matters of vast importance, and they should not be rushed through in this way. The real reason for pushing these Bills forward is that the promoters want to take advantage of the fact that the Government are a decaying and dying Government. The blessed word co-ordination has been used in this Debate until we are almost tired of it, but we do not find the people who are echoing that sentiment are very anxious to co-ordinate in regard to the coal industry or industry generally; it is only when there is a tramway system to be absorbed into the capitalist system. That is the kind of co-ordination that we do not want. It is our duty to London to resist these Bills as far as we can. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) spoke as if the whole question was one of faith, and so it is. We have no faith in the intentions
either of the majority of the London County Council or of the Government in this matter.

Colonel ASHLEY: In view of the importance of this subject to London, I do not think anyone will consider that two evenings have been wasted in the discussion of these proposals. They are proposals which have been discussed with more or less intensity in this House and outside for more than a generation. These proposals mark a very important advance on anything which has preceded them, though I think it is only right to recall to the House the great advance which was made in 1915 when the Bill was passed which enabled the London General Omnibus Company and the various tube railway companies to conic together for the purposes of a common management and a common fund. [An HON. MEMBER: "For war purposes."] The result of that combination has been greatly to the advantage of the public of London. It has given traffic facilities which could not otherwise have been afforded; it has enabled the Edgware Tube to be constructed; it has enabled the City and South London line to be entirely reconstructed and renovated; and, above all, and I say this without fear of contradiction, it has given under private enterprise the finest system of transportation in the world. Anyone who has visited other great cities must acknowledge that for efficiency of transportation, lowness of fares, skill on the part of those who operate these great services, civility, and general efficiency, they are unequalled in the world. Therefore, when hon. Members opposite make such a great parade of the efficiency of municipal enterprise—and that it is efficient at times I do not deny—they must be equally generous in ascribing to private enterprise, as far as London is concerned, a very great advance on anything that is to be seen in any foreign country.
The next Measure which dealt with London traffic, and which, within limits, has helped greatly, I do not say to solve, but to mitigate the troubles of London transportation, was the Bill of 1924, now the London Traffic Act, which was passed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. In that connection, may I say how sorry I am that the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling)—a man beloved in all quarters of the
House—is temporarily absent from our deliberations. I am glad to say that I heard from him by telephone this morning that he hopes to come back to his Parliamentary duties next week if it is at all possible. He, in the face of great difficulties, his Government being a minority Government, put through that Measure, and, in spite of what has been said by hon. Members opposite, that Act, conceived largely by a Conservative Government, and passed by a Socialist Government, has done a great deal to help in this problem. In spite of the remarks of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) in criticism of the Minister of Transport—whose back is quite broad enough to bear it—I would pay a tribute, not only to the hon. Member's colleagues on the Traffic Advisory Committee, but also to himself, for the very efficient way in which they have carried out their very arduous duties, which, I am sorry to say, have not always come to that full fruition which we should all have liked to see. At any rate, that Act has enabled the Minister, acting by and with the advice of the Traffic Advisory Committee, to do a great deal to mitigate the difficulties. By stabilisation of the number of omnibuses it has done away with some of the absurd and wasteful competition that we saw in our streets, has prevented any further increase of congestion, and in many other ways has helped towards the solution of the transport problem of this great city.
Directly after the present Government came into office, I asked the Traffic Advisory Committee if they would be good enough to investigate the deplorable traffic conditions which still exist, I am sorry to say, in North-East London, East London, and South-East London. I myself, when I was able to visit some of the places in question, notably Finsbury Park, found that the reports which they made to me were in no wise exaggerated, and urgently called for some measures of amelioration. The next step was, as the hon. Member for Rotherhithe pointed out, that I asked the Traffic Advisory Committee, in view of the experience that they had gained in these particular congested areas, to consider whether a scheme could he formulated to deal drastically with the whole situation, and to endeavour to put forward something
which might afford a permanent solution of our great difficulties. They brought forward what is called the Blue Report, a Report which contemplated a common management and a common fund for all passenger transport services in the London Traffic Area, other than the main lines, and subject to public control. I do not deny—I do not suppose that there are many in this House who would deny—that the principles of that Report are sound. Whether all the machinery which was devised was the right machinery or not may be a matter of opinion, but the principles are sound.
The gravamen of the charge of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe, and also the charge made by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) on the last occasion, against the Government and the Minister of Transport, was that we did not proceed at once to put that Report into legislative operation by a public Bill. There are many legislative proposals that are desired by large sections of the population, and there are many legislative proposals that are desired by the Government of the day, but anyone who considers for a moment the difficult situation which now exists, and which nearly always exists, in getting Measures passed in this House, owing to the congestion of Parliamentary business, must know quite well that no Government during the last 15 months could have put through a public Bill, which would have enabled the scheme to be carried out compulsorily—and that is the whole essence of the Blue Report—and which would inevitably have aroused very strong objection in various quarters of the House and would have taken up a great deal of Parliamentary time. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) last week said it was contemplated that at least two years of inquiry would have had to take place before a public Measure could possibly be brought in. Therefore, considering the congestion of Parliamentary time, and considering that it would take two years to investigate before you could bring in a Bill, the charge that the Government have been dilatory and neglectful of public interests in not promoting a public Bill obviously falls to the ground.
Consequently, what was the alternative? The alternative was apparently that which the County Council and the
Traffic Combine have decided is the right one, and the result of their deliberations is the two Bills which we have before us to-night, Bills which are not compulsory but purely voluntary. As regards those Bills, what is the considered opinion of the overwhelming majority of the Traffic Advisory Committee? They say that, they would have preferred the Blue Report, but they advise the Government to assist the passage of these Bills as far as their main principles are concerned. They say that there is nothing in these Bills in their opinion—and I agree—which would prevent a public Bill on the lines of the Blue Report being brought into operation if and when Parliamentary time can be found for it. They also say that they hope the possibility of the main line railways coming under these voluntary Bills will be contemplated, and furthered and, in that respect, may I say how I hope the Clauses in this Bill, which, if my recollection is correct, say the main line railways may come into this arrangement, are really meant to indicate that every facility should be given to the main line railways to come in.
It is vitally important, in my opinion, that the main line railways should, if possible, come in. I know that the difficulties of distinction between suburban and main line traffic for the purpose of a common fund are very great, but I cannot help thinking that with good will on both sides some agreement can be hammered out, so that if these Bills get their Second Reading and become law, we may see the main lines coming in with the County Council and the Traffic Combine. If that be so, you would really have a more or less complete scheme for the whole of London. What I like about these Bills is that we have—I do not say for the first time—an outstanding example of municipal enterprise and private enterprise seeking to work together, instead of always flying at each other's throats. [Laughter.] The hon. Member may laugh. Does he not wish that private enterprise and municipal enterprise should work together? Does he always wish that they should be at daggers drawn?

Mr. THURTLE: What I do not wish is that the profit earned by municipal enterprise should be taken by private enterprise.

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Gentleman is assuming what will not be the fact. The whole essence of these Bills depends upon the agreements which will be made between the London County Council and the Combine, agreements which, if I read the Bills correctly, will have to be approved by the Minister of Transport of the day in material respects and also afterwards approved by this House. Therefore, I do not know why it should be assumed that all the profits are to go into the pockets of private enterprise and none of it to the municipality. It is very strange, at any rate, that the hon. Member cannot trust the Municipal Reform party to look after the interests of the tramways, considering that the electors have entrusted them with the government of London for 22 years. No doubt there may be differences of opinion as to what will be the effect of these Bills. Personally, I think that they will somewhat relieve the congestion of the streets. I think that possibly—I put it no higher—you will get better facilities and lower fares. What I am quite sure will happen, because the pressure of public opinion will be so great, is that you will see new tubes built which would never have been built unless these Bills had been passed. That is the great need of London to-day.
I am sure the hon. Member for Rotherhithe will not disagree with the fact that tubes are needed, though he may not agree that these Bills will give those tubes. But he and everybody who took part in those investigations know that the congestion on the surface is so great now that no relief of any sort can be given by trams or by omnibuses, and that if we are going to help those hardly-pressed districts in the East, North East and South East of London, where the congestion is deplorable and is getting worse year by year, it must be by building tubes. Building tubes is a costly matter. It may cost anything from £900,000 to 81,000,000 a mile. Obviously you are not going to get people to put their money into an enterprise such as that unless they have—and hon. Members opposite, I am sure will in fairness agree—a prospect of getting some sort of return for their money. I am convinced that a common management and a common fund for the London County Council trams, the Com-
bine, and municipal and private trams, if they come in, is the only hope of getting some security whereby money can be raised in order to build tubes which are so urgently needed. I do press hon. Members before they continue to oppose these Bills earnestly to consider, as practical men, whether there is any other immediate prospect of getting these tubes built.

Mr. NAYLOR: There is no guarantee that we shall have the tubes built if we pass these Bills.

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will look at the Bills he will see, if my recollection is correct, that there are three objects on which the local authorities may appeal to the Minister. He can then ask the common management to put forward schemes to provide better transport facilities—which would include tubes—lower fares, or to give greater facilities in existing services. No doubt the Minister of the day would put forward proposals to the controlling council, or whatever they call themselves, suggesting that the tubes should be built. The hon. Member has in mind that there is no legal compulsion in the Bill to compel the common management to build the tubes, but I submit that where a great deal of control is vested in the Minister, the pressure of public opinion would be so great that, if there was money available, they would be compelled to build the tubes, whether they wished to do so or not.
I have listened very carefully to the whole of the Debate, last week and this week, and I have been unable to discover any valid reason why hon. Members opposite should object to these Bills. They may say that they object to anything which is not public ownership and public control. Surely, they would not condemn the vast population of London, some 10,000,000 of people, to continue with these inadequate traffic facilities simply because this one political nostrum of theirs, public ownership and public control, cannot immediately be brought into effect. Would they allow the patient to die because the particular medicine which they prescribe is not allowed to be given to the patient? Surely, that would be taking a small and certainly not a broad
view of the difficulties of the case. A further point seems to be that these Bills must be opposed on that assertion that it means handing over the people's trams to private enterprise. I would ask hon. Members opposite to keep that for the public platform and not for the House of Commons. It does not mean handing over the people's trams to anybody. The ownership of the tramways remain vested in the London County Council. Therefore, hon. Members will be able to call them the people's trams as long as they like.

Mr. GIBBINS: Keep that for the platform.

Mr. NAYLOR: Not the control of the tramways.

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member says "not the control of the tramways." The control of the tramways depends on the agreements that are entered into. Surely hon. Members can trust the Municipal Reform majority to look after that [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then I would point out to hon. Members that they must at once cease to be led by the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald), and they must no longer allow Mr. Herbert Morrison to lead them in the county council, because a pamphlet which I hold in my hand, which has a foreword by the right hon. Member for Aberavon, a pamphlet written by Mr. Herbert Morrison, states:
The statement that the tramways are inefficient is no more reliable than the statement that they are a nuisance.
There you have the statement that the tramways are efficiently managed. There is also this remark:
The statement that the tramways do not pay is also untrue.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon Gentleman is quoting apparently from an official document, and I want to ask whether it will be on the official records of the House?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not know whether this is an official document or not, but if it is it shall certainly be laid on the Table of the House.

Mr. KELLY: What is the title of the pamphlet?

Colonel ASHLEY: "The London Traffic Fraud." I am sorry I have detained the House so long, but I ask hon. Members
by a large majority to give a Second Reading to these Bills because it is my considered opinion that they will be for the benefit of the citizens of London and give them better traffic facilities.

Mr. BARNES: I was hoping that the Minister of Transport would have given us some reasons for supporting these Bills, but during the two days' Debate I have not heard one hon. Member on the other side endeavour to prove that the public interests are safeguarded in this matter. They have simply made assertions. The right hon. Gentleman has said that what he likes about these Bills is the fact that for the first time we have a public authority and a private company working together, and he was rather surprised that hon. Members on these benches did not agree with that statement. We do not consider that this is a case of a public authority and a private company working together on equal terms, because I am hoping to prove, by an examination of the Bills themselves, that the public interests are not safeguarded and that the position is determined to the advantage of the Combine as against the advantage of the public authorities. All the material assets and managerial control are deliberately and definitely handed over to the Combine.
Why is it that public necessity is always made the occasion for private gain? Why do we find on this occasion, when the traffic problems of London are growing more acute each year, that there is to be a sale of London traffic to private interests? That is the point to which the Minister of Transport as the representative of the public should have addressed himself rather than to the other matters with which he dealt, and which were not material to the point. The right hon. Gentleman placed great emphasis on the fact that the best way of obtaining improved traffic facilities for London is by an extension of the tube system; that at the present time the general situation in London traffic is such that it is impossible for the Combine to go on the open market and to raise the necessary capital for the extension of its tube system; and that therefore the only way in which the Combine can raise the necessary capital is to form a common fund, so that those who invest will be assured of their dividends.
The statement of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) when he first spoke on the Bill, the Minister's statement just made, the Blue Report and every investigation have proved that the only material extension of London's traffic facilities is to be in the form of extensions provided by the Combine of its tube system. The confession of Lord Ashfield in the report to his own company meeting and the statements by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth show that it is impossible to get an extension of the tube system until some common fund can be established to safeguard the necessary capital expenditure. So the one thing that does emerge in the whole of these investigations and in these Bills is that a common fund is to be established, not in the interest of the London County Council tramway system, but that the sole purpose of the common fund is to safeguard the interests of the shareholders of the Combine.
I would like the Minister of Transport or the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth to point to anything in the Blue Report that suggests any material expansion of the public side of traffic in London. It is clear to anyone who examines the problem that out of this common fund you are to get the private side of London traffic extended, and that that will become an increasing quantity while the public side will become relatively a dwindling quantity. Therefore, public powers are being voted here deliberately for the purpose of providing profit for private shareholders. We are not asking the House to decide on the merits or demerits of these Bills. What we are asking the House to decide is that the public interests involved are so extensive that they should never have been dealt with by means of a private Bill, and that the Government have no right to ask the House to consider the Government's convenience before the House's responsibility to the 8,000,000 people of Greater London. There is no precedent of a private Bill affecting so many people and of so widespread a character being introduced and passed as private legislation.
Let us consider what is involved. In London and Greater London there are 8,000,000 persons who use the traffic facilities of London. There you have a
population almost twice that of Scotland. Would some of the hon. Members who are supporting these Bills, support Bills of this sort to deal with similar problems in a place like Scotland, or even in some of the larger cities like Manchester or Birmingham? In such cases you would never find legislation of this sort introduced in the form of a private Bill. The Minister never mentioned the fact that there are no fewer than 174 local authorities in the London traffic area—and these Bills cover the whole of the traffic facilities in that area. The Blue Report says that the problems of traffic for the whole of the London traffic area are involved. But although there are 174 authorities in that area, these Bills are promoted by one local authority and one private organisation.
I contend that the Bills constitute a direct infringement of the rights of the other local authorities and should have been ruled out from the Chair on that ground. But, as the Chair has left the matter to the decision of the House, I say that the House ought to have no hesitation whatever in refusing to pass these Bills as private Bills. There are two county councils—the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council—involved in the London traffic area. There are parts of five other counties, namely, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Kent, Hertfordshire and Surrey. There are three county boroughs, East Ham, West Ham and Croydon. These three boroughs have a representative on the Advisory Committee and I notice that he has signed the Report. Yet I can state authoritatively that these three county boroughs oppose these Bills and are lodging petitions against them. Two of them, I know for certain, are opposed in principle and practice to the Bills. There are 38 borough councils, 56 urban district councils, 16 rural district councils and 54 parish councils also involved.

Captain FRASER: How many of these are traffic authorities?

Mr. BARNES: It may be that only 11 or 12 are traffic authorities, but that does not materially affect my point. The population in the areas of these local authorities, whether they are traffic authorities or not, have to use the traffic
facilities of London. My point is that the. Traffic Advisory Committee was created solely to look after the public interest. In the Committee upstairs, when we were discussing the London Traffic Act, Members of all parties, against the advice of the then Minister, joined in insisting that the members of the Advisory Committee should be drawn solely from public authorities. That was an effort to safeguard the public interest, and in view of the large public interests involved, these Bills should not be brought in as private Bills by one local authority and one private undertaking.
May I quote some precedents which strengthen my claim that these should be public Bills. In 1881 we had the Thames Navigation Bill introduced as a private Bill. Important as is the navigation of the Thames, it will not be alleged that it is as important as the whole of the traffic problem of the London area. But objection was raised in that case, and, on the attention of the Speaker being directed to that Bill, it was withdrawn as a private Bill and reintroduced as a public Bill. In 1871 the City of London introduced a private Bill called the Court of Hustings City of London Bill. It was found to infringe the rights of other local authorities and the Bill was withdrawn when that point became apparent. Neither of these Bills infringed the rights of powers of local authorities to the extent which I have just indicated. In 1900, the Metropolitan Water Company introduced a private Bill. In it the Local Government Board were proposing to confer new powers on the Metropolitan Water Board. Mr. Speaker on that occasion called attention to the important powers that it contained, and the Bill had to be withdrawn. In 1910, the Society of Apothecaries of London introduced a private Bill to grant diplomas in sanitary science to their members. Again, Mr. Speaker ruled out the Bill. I venture to submit to this House that no Member can quote any precedent for Bills of this magnitude, which affect so many local authorities, and which touch the travelling facilities of 8,000,000 of people, and prove that they should be introduced as private Bills.
Let us compare the character of the parent Act itself, the London Traffic Act, and the powers and functions given to
the Minister and the Advisory Committee under it, with the powers proposed in these Bills. In the London Traffic Act, I find that the powers are purely advisory, tentative, and regulatory in character. Neither the Minister nor the Committee have any power to interfere with capital, management, depreciation, and a variety of other subjects. Therefore, these private Bills, although not inclusive, are as a matter of fact, much more far reaching in effect and more executive in character than the London Traffic Act itself. Let me indicate the possibilities and issues involved in this Bill without any safeguard being inserted. The Minister himself admitted my case fully when he had repeatedly to agree that certain subjects were not defined but were subject to subsequent agreements. Management, services, maintenance, development of all land and buildings, fixtures and rolling stocks, interchange of traffic, fares, rates, charges on receipts and revenue, allocation and apportionment of receipts and balances under anticipated agreements—all these are in no way defined. Control and distribution of the common fund are in no way defined.
The complete management of the London County Council trams is handed over to the Combine. That may be refuted and I think the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) referred to Clause 5 and said there was complete safeguards. If he will refer to the statement of the London County Council themselves, he will find that there is no safeguard over management. The complete management of the London County Council trams is to be handed over to the directors of the Combine, and the council are to have only two representatives. There is to be a Tramways Advisory Committee if all the other local authorities come into the scheme later on. If they do, they will come under duress and have no alternative. They either come in or else their whole traffic system will collapse, because you cannot consider the outer area of London apart from the inner area. If the Tramway Advisory Committee is created, then Lord Ashfield is to be the ex-officio chairman of the entirely municipal tramway system. That is treating the public services and safeguards with contempt. What is the use of hon. Members getting up here
and making general statements about there being safeguards in the Bill When I defy any hon. Member to quote any Clause where safeguards are determined, scheduled, and defined? Every Clause is a complete blank cheque to the directors of the Combine to arrange every phase of London traffic so as to secure the end which the Minister himself mentioned, namely, to bolster up any expansion which they want and, first of all, to secure a return to their members.
If this Bill had been a public Bill, there is a whole variety of matters that we could have dealt with. We could have inserted safeguards which would have given local authorities fair and equitable powers of appeal. I submit that the local authorities have no right of effective appeal to the Minister in areas outside the London County Council area, except on fares and services within their own locality. Anyone who is familiar with London traffic is fully aware that you cannot separate the fares and services in West Ham or East Ham from the through journeys throughout London. If the London County Council and the Combine wished to take an unfair advantage of a situation of that sort, they could easily meet the local difficulties, but by adjustments in further stages of the journey they could nullify that advantage. I challenge either the Minister of Labour or the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth to prove that there is any safeguard in the Bill for the cheap fares inaugurated by the London County Council. The marginal note to Clause 5 and the third Sub-section of that Clause enable the Combine and any management to prove various things, and the Minister would be in an impossible position to upset the evidence that they would be able to submit under that third Sub-section. Although the Minister's name is mentioned, I submit that there is no, effective safeguard for cheap fares or facilities.
The House of Commons is asked to give a blank cheque to the traffic system controlled by the Combine, and no attempt is made to insert any real safeguards in any direction. I submit, further, that whatever loss there is in traffic will be at the expense of the London County Council. If that is not so, why is it that the only compensation Clause in these two Bills is one affecting the London
County Council staff? That is a clear indication on the part of the Combine that they are not looking forward to a restriction of their services and that they do not anticipate any displacement of their staff; but the fact that compensation is inserted in the London County Council Bill foreshadows a restriction in the personnel of their service, and that means that many of the functions of their staff are to be taken over and performed by the Combine staff. The whole sequence of events proves conclusively t subordination of the public interest private enterprise.
11.0 p.m.
If I may summarise our grounds of opposition to the Bill, they are that, despite all the lip service which we have heard, there are no real safeguards in the Bill to protect the public interest. The intention of the traffic control of London is to drive the Londoner underground, and if that is the case, then the Londoner ought to have a say in the matter through his representatives in this House. There are no effective safeguards for cheap fares, and no hon. Member so far, representing either the London County Council or anyone else, has been able to point to any provision in the Bill which is a safeguard. The marginal note to Clause 5 rules out the Minister, and there is no effective safeguard for fares. I want to emphasise that all the history of London teaches that it has been the municipal side that has reduced the prices for electricity, for transport facilities and for water. Londoners never look to private enterprise to reduce the cost of any of the services. In this scheme public trusts are being betrayed and public property is being used for the benefit of the Combine. That large public interests are involved cannot be denied when the travelling facilities of 8,000,000 people are affected. These Bills infringed the rights of 173 local authorities, many of whom are opposed to them. The coordination of all tramway authorities—[Interruption.] Many hon. Members who are now talking to each other on the other side have been absent through all our Debates. Those who represent large traffic interests in London and who represent masses of people are entitled to ask Conservative Members, even if they are going into the Lobby to support these Bills, at least to
have the courtesy to listen to those Members who have sat through two nights of the Debate. If they do not want to listen to the speeches, why do they not go to the Smoke Room? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] We ask the House of Commons to remember that large public interests are involved, and as the Minister of Transport will not carry out his duty, we hope that Members of the House of commons will carry out theirs.

Sir R HORNE: rose—

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has a direct connection with one of the parties promoting these Bills. As I understand it, the parties have deliberately promoted Private Bills rather than Public Bills, and I ask you, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his direct connection with one of the promoting parties, has any right to take part in the discussion?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing at all to prevent the right hon. Gentleman taking part in the discussion.

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask, therefore, whether he has any right to vote in the Division Lobby?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know any reason why he should nut vote in the Division Lobby.

Mr. THURTLE: May I then quote from Erskine May where it says:
In the Commons it is a rule that no Member who has a direct pecuniary interest"—

HON. MEMBERS: Direct!

Mr. THURTLE: Surely a directorship is a direct interest.
a direct pecuniary interest in a question, shall be allowed to vote upon it.
It goes on to say:
But, in order to operate as a disqualification, this interest must be immediate and personal, and not merely of a general or remote character.
I submit that the holding of a directorship does mean that there is an immediate personal interest involved.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that, if the Rule were strictly carried out on every occasion according to the interpretation put upon it by the hon. Member, there would be a great many abstentions from all parts of the House.

Mr. THURTLE: I always understood that when there was any doubt as to Parliamentary practice, we referred to the book of Erskine May. May I ask, if this book is not to be taken as a reliable authority, where we may look for guidance in matters of this kind?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have very good reason to know and to follow that book. I consult it on every occasion.

Mr. BENN: Would it be in order, after the Division, to follow a precedent, which has been known in this House and to move a Motion that the vote of the right hon. Gentleman be disallowed in the Division?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no reason why the hon. Member should not put down such a Motion.

Sir R. HORNE: I made inquiries before I thought of speaking to-night, and I was informed by hon. Members who have much longer experience in the practices of this House than I have that it was entirely appropriate for me to speak. I reflected, further, that we listen constantly in this House to speeches from hon. Members opposite in connection with their unions, in which they are directly interested as officials and from which they draw salaries. Accordingly, it seemed to me that no distinction could be drawn between their case and mine; and, in addition to that, one has very often heard speeches upon questions of moment to trade in which hon. Members were directly interested. Accordingly, I myself, think, being challenged, that it would not be in any way either dishonourable or inconsistent with the practices of this House if I were to carry on and make the speech which I had intended to make. We have listened to speeches from railway directors upon occasions when the interests of their railways have been concerned, and very important Bills were passed last year in which the speeches made in connection with the railway interests were made by directors of the companies. Accordingly, as it seemed to me, it was quite within the practice of this House that I should speak; but I now propose entirely to relieve the minds of hon. Members oppo-
site who are so very anxious not to hear me. There being this feeling in the matter, and a wish, apparently, that the House should not take advantage of the views of those who are intimately connected with these matters, I accordingly propose neither to speak nor to vote, not because I think it would be wrong, but because I shall not give any opportunity to anybody to say that the progress of this Bill has been in any way influenced by anything I have said.

Mr. J. JONES: After the speech from the Minister of Transport, followed by the speech of one of the leaders of our party on this particular matter, and the speech of the right hon Gentleman who has just sat down, I think one of us who represents the orphans of the storm in this case ought to have the right to say a few words. West Ham has been treated all through this matter as though it did not matter; anything is good enough for us. We are one of the places that the London General Omnibus Company and the Traffic Combine are treating with contempt. For over 30 years, we have asked them to provide traffic facilities in and around the docks. They have refused to provide them, and when our council have promoted private Bills they were the first to oppose our effort to provide travelling facilities for our own people. Silvertown is a great industrial area, but to-day we have no direct traffic communication; we are interlocked and interlaced by iron bridges, level crossings, and all sorts of obstacles to traffic. Every time we have proposed to have an omnibus service the first opposition we have had to encounter has always been the people who have come along now in support of these Bills. We fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts. We all remember General Blucher, who helped to win the Battle of Waterloo. As a reward we invited Blucher home to London, and we wined and dined him, and then we sent him away with bands playing and flags flying. When Blucher was asked what he thought of London, he said, "What a magnificent city to sack."
We have been told that we shall have to find £3,000,000 to rescue a bankrupt undertaking. Remember that this Bill is only a beginning of what hon. Members opposite intend to do. In West Ham we have done more than the Combine. A
child in West Ham can travel all over our own area for a halfpenny. I wonder if the omnibus companies will allow halfpenny fares for children. In West Ham we are poor and we are told that we have not the brains possessed by these people but we have more honesty. We have paid all our debts up to now. As far as our trams are concerned we have invested in them £2,000,000 of public money and now we are beginning to understand the reason for these Bills. Ten years from now our municipal undertakings will be clear of debt. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the guardians?"] I am not talking about the guardians, but about the trams. On these matters I do not know so much as hon. Members opposite, because they can be directors of all sorts of things that they know nothing about. I am only a common trade union official, and I only do the job I know. Hon. Members opposite can run the universe in company with God Almighty for £10,000 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I know what I do know, and that is enough for me to know.

Sir C. COBB rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. JONES: If hon. Members opposite were risking £2,000,000 worth of investments, as we are, I am sure that they would not support a Bill of this character which takes all authority away from us. I represent a population of 320,000 and under this Bill they will not be allowed to have any say about the fares. Presently we shall have to approach these people on our knees and say, "Please may we breathe." Then you will consult the Lord Almighty upstairs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I have heard hon. Members use worse language than that.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, merely as a matter of information, whether it is in order to use in debate a term like "God Almighty"? May I call attention to the fact that it has previously been held that to introduce the
name of the Deity in that way is an abuse of the Rules of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must say that the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) was going much too far.

Mr. JONES: May I say that I never used the words that the Noble Lord states? I said "Lord Almighty," and that is perfectly in order. I only meant that, so far as this traffic problem is concerned, one gentleman has been singled out to be the Lord Almighty. He is going to be in control of the whole system, and the only public guarantee that we have is that two people out of 18 will have to be there. The two people will count for nothing. Therefore, so far as we in this House are concerned, we are handing over the whole interests of the people of London to a committee composed, practically speaking, of a huge combine—one company—and they are not going to stop at London; the octopus will stretch its tentacles all over Great Britain. When you are talking about interest in public authorities, the only interest you have in the public authorities is the interest you get out of them. It reminds me of a certain kind of serpent, which slobbers all over its victim before finally swallowing it.
We are making a protest against the whole principle of this Bill. If co-ordination is wanted, let us have real co-ordination, and let the public have the right to decide how the co-ordination shall take place, so that all the time and every time the public interest shall come before private interest. Therefore, I associate myself with the opposition to these Bills. If it is desired to discuss public interests, let it be done on the Floor of this Chamber, and not by means of private Bills. Let this great problem, which is an actual problem, be discussed by means of a Government Bill, which will give us the opportunity of fair, free and full discussion.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 113.

Division No. 239.]
AYES.
[7.38 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hollins, A.
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shield, G. W.


Bellamy, A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Wedgwood
Kelly, W. T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Kennedy, T
Sitch, Charles H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Lawrence, Susan
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lee, F.
Sullivan, Joseph


Caps, Thomas
Longbottom, A. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Clarke, A. B.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cove, W. G.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Day, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Welsh, J C.


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethirk-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B. Smith.


Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chapman, Sir S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Christie, J. A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Clarry, Reginald George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clayton, G. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grotrian, H. Brent


Apsley, Lord
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hamilton, Sir George


Atholl, Duchess of
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hammersley, S. S.


Atkinson, C.
Cope, Major Sir William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Couper, J. B.
Harland, A.


Balniel, Lord
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hartington, Marquess of


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Haslam, Henry C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Bethel, A.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hilton, Cecil


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Ellis, R. G.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Briant, Frank
England, Colonel A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Briggs, J. Harold
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fielden, E. B.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Forrest, W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bullock, Captain M.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hume, Sir G. H.


Campbell, E. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hume-Willlams, Sir W. Ellis


Carver, Major W. H.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Hurd, Percy A.


Cassels, J. D.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Garro-Jones, Captain C. M.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Gates, Percy
Iveagh, Countess of


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Savery, S. S.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Rentrew,W.)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shepperson, E. W.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Nicholson, Col.Rt.Hn.W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Sinclair,Col.T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Skelton, A. N.


Lamb, J. Q.
Nuttall, Ellis
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Oakley, T.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Livingstone, A. M.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Loder, J. de V.
Owen, Major G.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Looker, Herbert William
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Strauss, E. A.


Lougher, Lewis
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Perring, Sir William George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lumley, L. R.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Templeton, W. P.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


McLean, Major A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Preston, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Macquisten, F. A.
Pringle, J. A.
Warner, Brigadier General W. W.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Raine, Sir Walter
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ramsden, E.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Margesson, Capt. D.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wayland, Sir William A.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wells, S. R.


Meller, R. J.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Reid, D. O. (County Down)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ropner, Major L.
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds,Central)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Ross, R. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Womersley, W J


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Russell, Alexander west (Tynemouth)
Wood, Rt. Hon Sir Kingsley


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney;



Morris, R. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sandon, Lord
Major the Marquess of Titchfield




and Sir Victor Warrender.


Main Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Division No. 240.]
AYES.
[11.19 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Gates, Percy
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Albery, Irving James
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Goff, Sir Park
Perring, Sir William George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Apsley, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Atholl, Duchess of
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Preston, William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Radford, E. A.


Balniel, Lord
Grotrian, H. Brent
Raine, Sir Walter


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hamilton, Sir George
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remer, J. R.


Bethel, A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bevan, S. J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ropner, Major L.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ross, R. D.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandon, Lord


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)


Bullock, Captain M.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Shepperson, E. W.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Campbell, E. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cassels, J. D.
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Clayton, G. C.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Lamb, J. Q.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Loder, J. de V.
Templeton, W. P.


Cope, Major Sir William
Looker, Herbert William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Couper, J. B.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lumley, L. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Crockshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macquisten, F. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ellis, R. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ford, Sir P. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Moore, Sir Newton J.



Fraser, Captain Ian
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sir Cyril Cobb and Sir Henry Jackson.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Day, Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Duncan, C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Ammon, Charles George
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barnes, A.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Barr, J.
Gardner, J. P.
Kelly, W. T.


Batey, Joseph
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kennedy, T.


Bellamy, A.
Gibbins, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Benn, Wedgwood
Gillett, George M.
Kirkwood, D.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lansbury, George


Bondfield, Margaret
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawrence, Susan


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lawson, John James


Briant, Frank
Groves, T.
Lee, F.


Broad, F. A.
Grundy, T. W.
Lindley, F. W.


Bromfield, William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Longbottom, A. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hardie, George D.
Lowth, T.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Harris, Percy A.
Lunn, William


Buchanan, G.
Hayday, Arthur
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Mackinder, W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Clarke, A. B.
Hollins, A.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Cluse, W. S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Compton, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Montague, Frederick


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)




Murnin, H.
Sitch, Charles H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Oliver, George Harold
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Owen, Major G.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wellock, Wilfred


Palin, John Henry
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Westwood, J.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snell, Harry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Whiteley, W.


Potts, John S.
Stamford, T. W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Purcell, A. A.
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Ritson, J.
Strauss, E. A.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St.Ives)
Sullivan, Joseph
Windsor, Walter


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Sutton, J. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sexton, James
Taylor, R. A.



Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shield, G. W.
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. Scurr and Mr. Naylor.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Townend, A. E.

Bill read a Second time.

Sir CYRIL COBB: I beg to move,
That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. AMMON: I think it would be wrong if we allowed this Bill to go to a Joint Committee without uttering some words of protest before going into the Division Lobby against the proposal. The manner in which this Bill has been put before the House in the form of a private Bill seems to violate all the usages of Parliament, particularly having regard to the great public interests concerned. Only the minimum of Parliamentary consideration is being given to it. We look upon this present proposal as an attempt further to

circumscribe the discussion and examination of the Bill. I will content myself with that protest, and ask my friends to vote against it in the Lobby.

Mr. BENN: It is another of these testamentary dispositions of a dying Government. The promoters of this Bill have chosen to put the Measure through as a private Bill because it suits their private interests. If they wish to put it through as a private Bill they should give all the opportunities for discussion which Private Bill Procedure provides. Instead of that, they wish to curtail the procedure. The only reason is that this Bill shall become law before the General Election sweeps them out from power to do this sort of thing.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 110.

Division No. 241.]
AYES.
[11.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Christie, J. A.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Albery, Irving James
Clayton, G. C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hamilton, Sir George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harrison, G. J. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cope, Major Sir William
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Atholl, Duchess of
Couper, J. B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Balniel, Lord
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hilton, Cecil


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bethel, A.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Bevan, S. J.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ellis, R. G.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fermoy, Lord
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Briscoe, Richard George
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hurd, Percy A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fraser, Captain Ian
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gates, Percy
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Bullock, Captain M.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Butt, Sir Alfred
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lamb, J. Q.


Campbell, E. T.
Goff, Sir Park
Loder, J. de V.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Looker, Herbert William


Cassels, J. D.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Lumley, L. R.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Radford, E. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


McLean, Major A.
Raine, Sir Walter
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Macquisten, F. A.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Templeton, W. P.


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Remer, J. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Margesson, Captain D.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Marriott, Sir J. A. ft.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Ropner, Major L.
Ward, Lt.Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ross, R. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Salmon, Major I.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wells, S. R.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sandon, Lord
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Skelton, A. N.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Perring, Sir William George
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Womersley, W. J.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



Power, Sir John Cecil
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Sir Henry Jackson and Sir Cyril Cobb.


Preston, William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St.Ives)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
Hollins, A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shield, G. W.


Bellamy, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Benn, Wedgwood
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawrence, Susan
Strauss, E. A.


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lindley, F. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Clarke, A. B.
Longbottom, A. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atttercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Scurr and Mr. Naylor.


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — LONDON ELECTRIC RAILAWAY COMPANIES (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Division No. 242.]
AYES.
[11.38 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Balniel, Lord


Albery, Irving James
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Atholl, Duchess of
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, Noes, 107.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bethel, A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bevan, S. J.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Boothby, R. J. G.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Preston, William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir George
Radford, E. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, Sir Walter


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Remer, J. R.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hilton, Cecil
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Ropner, Major L.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ross, R. D.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Carver, Major W. H.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cassels, J. D.
Hudson, Capt a. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sandon, Lord


Christie, J. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Clayton, G. C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cockeril, Brig.-General Sir George
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Skelton, A. N.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cope, Major Sir William
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. Q.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Looker, Herbert William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lumley, L. R.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Templeton, W. P.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Captain H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Ellis, R. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lt.Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fermoy, Lord
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wells, S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gates, Percy.
Morrison, H. (Wills, Salisbury)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Womersley, W. J.


Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)



Gower, Sir Robert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sir Henry Jackson and Sir Cyril Cobb.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Perring, Sir William George





NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mackinder, W.


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Barnes, A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Barr, J.
Groves, T.
Montague, Frederick


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bellamy, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Harris, Percy A.
Owen, Major G.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, A.
Potts, John S.


Bromfield, William
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pureed, A. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Clarke, A. B.
Kelly, W. T.
Shield, G. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Sitch, Charles H.


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Lansbury, George
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Day, Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lindley, F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gardner, J. P.
Longbottom, A. W.
Stamford, T. W.


Garro-Jonet, Captain G. M.
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William
Strauss, E. A.


Gillett, George M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sullivan, Joseph




Sutton, J. E.
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, R. J. Marrow)


Taylor, R. A.
Wtstwood, J.
Windsor, Walter


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, W.



Townend, A. E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Scurr and Mr. Naylor.


Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Thirteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.